Weyerhaeuser Steamship Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
194 federal appellate · 29 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 382 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2011 · most notably United States v. Reliable Transfer Co. (1975), Stencel Aero Engineering Corporation v. United States (1977)
194 federal appellate · 29 district · 18 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States v. Weyerhaeuser Steamship Co. (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 33 U.S.C. § 905
Relies on Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp. · Weyerhaeuser Steamship Co. v. Nacirema Operating Co. · Crumady v. the Joachim Hendrik Fisser · Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp. · Waterman Steamship Corporation v. Dugan & McNamara Inc
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 382 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]here is no evidence whatever that Congress was concerned with the rights of unrelated third parties, much less of any purpose to disturb settled doctrines of [tort] law affecting the mutual rights and liabilities of private [parties] in [indemnity] cases.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“governed with at least equal clarity the correlative rights and duties”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Section 5 of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act is nearly identical to § 7(b) of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act in providing that ‘[t]he liability of an employer . . . shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law or in admiralty on account of such injury or death . . . .’In Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic S. S. Corp., 350 U.S. 124 , 76 S.Ct. 232 , 100 L.Ed. 133 , it was held that despite this exclusive liability provision, a shipowner was entitled to reimbursement from a longshoreman’s employer for damages recovered against the shipowner by the longshoreman injured by the employer’s negligence. The Court’s decision in Ryan was based upon the existence of a contractual relationship between the shipowner and the employer. In a series of subsequent eases, the same result was reached, although the contractual relationship was considerably more attenuated.” (Citations omitted). “In the present case there was no contractual relationship between the United States and the petitioner, governing their correlative rights and duties. There is involved here, instead, a rule of admiralty law which, for more than 100 years, has governed with at least equal clarity the correlative rights and duties of two shipowners whose vessels have been involved in a collision ”
3 later decisions 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.