Gooden v. Sinclair Refining Co.’s Empirical Analysis
378 F.2d 576 · 1967
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Loffland Brothers Company v. Everett B. Roberts, O. D. Casing Crews, Inc. v. Continental Oil Company (1968), Bertram v. Freeport McMoran, Inc. (1994)
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 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 Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp. · Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique · Vaughan v. Atkinson · United States v. Standard Oil Co. · Aguilar v. Standard Oil 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This obligation arises from the fact that the seaman, while in the service of Sinclair's ship, Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527 , 531, 82 S.Ct. 997, 8 L.Ed.2d 88 (1962), became disabled through no insubordination, vice or misconduct of his own. Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., 318 U.S. 724 , 63 S.Ct. 930, 87 L.Ed. 1107 (1943). It makes no difference that the disability was completely unrelated to the seaman's employment on Sinclair's ship, Farrell v. United States, 336 U.S. 511 , 69 S.Ct. 707, 93 L.Ed.2d 850 (1949). The obligation to provide maintenance and cure continues until maximum medical recovery has in fact been achieved, Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527 , 531, 82 S.Ct. 997, 8 L.Ed.2d 88 (1962), notwithstanding the issuance of Public Health Service fit for duty slips, Koslusky v. United States, 2 Cir., 208 F.2d 957 , 959; Permanente Steamship Corp. v. Martinez, 9 Cir., 369 F.2d 297 , 299; Labenz v. National Shipping & Trading Corp., 153 F.Supp. 785, 786 (E.D.Pa. 1957).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Neff v. Dravo Corp.
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.