Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc. v. Ulpiano Velez, Manager, Puerto Rico State Insurance Fund’s Empirical Analysis
376 F.2d 521 · 1967
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently December 2001
15 federal appellate · 8 district ·
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 Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen · Lauritzen v. Larsen · Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart · Washington v. W. C. Dawson & Co. · Guerrido v. Alcoa Steamship Co.
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * gy ^e Act of May 16, 1958, No. 16, p. 19, the Legislature enacted an exemption as to technical personnel protected by laws of other jurisdictions. 11 L.P.R.A. § 28a. In the statement of motives, inter alia, appearing in the Act appears the following : ‘By express provision of the workmen’s accident compensation statutes, or by judicial order, the laws in the continent generally have extraterritorial effect, so that when workmen are hired in the various states, they are subject to the Workmen’s Compensation Act of the State where they are hired. We are facing the same situation as regards the employment of technical personnel im ported from the United States of America. ‘Since our statute establishes compulsory insurance, the firms employing such technical personnel would be bound to maintain double insurance in connection therewith. ‘It is convenient to industry in general, and to the employers affected, that a reasonable standard be established to prevent duplication in the payment of such premiums.’ (See note, 11 L.P.R.A. § 28a.) Here is a clearly expressed intention by the Legislature of Puerto Rico that its Workmen’s Accident Compensation Act shall not be used as a vehicle to require the maintenance of duplicating compensation insurance by an employer.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“was not intended to mean that the Congress had delegated to the Legislature of Puerto Rico power in the general field of admiralty and maritime law.... Indeed, the delegation of such power would radically change the characteristic feature of the general maritime law that it follows the flag of the vessel and would seriously interfere with the proper uniform application of that law in its international and interstate relations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(T)he Puerto Rico Workmen's Accident Compensation Act cannot be applied to seamen injured in Puerto Rican waters on an American vessel owned by a corporation of a state other than Puerto Rico where the contract of employment was not entered into in Puerto Rico.”
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.