Alpert v. Zim Lines’s Empirical Analysis
370 F.2d 115 · 1966
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 2004
3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Allen v. Matson Navigation Co. · Moore v. American Scantic Line, Inc. · American President Lines, Ltd. v. Lundstrom
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A passenger carrier has a duty ‘to exercise extraordinary vigilance and the highest skill to secure the safe conveyance of the passengers’, Allen v. Matson Navigation Co. (9th Cir.1958), 255 F.2d 273, 277 , and if it knows that a passenger has physical disabilities it must exercise such higher degree of care — including giving special assistance — as is reasonably necessary to insure that passenger’s safety in view of his disabilities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.