Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 370 U.S. 31 - Salem v. United States Lines Company

Salem v. United States Lines Company’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

1,497
cited by 1,497 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
15
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

884 federal appellate · 56 district · 136 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,497 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Hamling v. United States (1974), Bostic v. Connor (1988)

884 federal appellate · 56 district · 136 state decisions — followed in 15 states

44201962197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedSalem v. United States Lines Co. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Calmar Ss Corporation v. Taylor · Milwaukee and Saint Paul Railway Company v. Kellogg · New England Coal & Coke Co. v. Northern Barge Corporation · Spring Company v. Edgar

Cited together with Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · Hamling v. United States · Glasser v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States

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 1,497 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the trial judge has broad discretion in the matter of the admission or exclusion of expert evidence, and his action is to be sustained unless manifestly erroneous.”
    71 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “There does not appear to be any sufficient basis, by opinion evidence or otherwise, for the finding that three years is the period reasonably to be expected for Salem to reach maximum improvement. Salem v. United States Lines Co., 293 F.2d 121, 125 (2d Cir. 1961), affd., 370 U.S. 31 , 82 S.Ct. 1119 , 8 L.Ed.2d 313 (1962.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “sufficient evidence, both from oral testimony and from photographs ... to visualize the platform on and from which plaintiff fell and to determine whether some railing or hand hold ... was reasonably necessary.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.