Ruddiman v. Scow Platform’s Empirical Analysis
38 F. 158 · 1889
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2013
1 federal appellate · 3 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 Cope v. Vallette Dry Dock Co. · Disbrow v. The Walsh Bros. · Woodruff v. One Covered Scow · Snyder v. A Floating Dry-Dock · Cope v. Vallette Dry-Dock
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To admit of a maritime lien, the scow structure must be a ‘vessel,’ within the meaning of the maritime law. I am of opinion that the structure in question, though afloat, is not such a vessel, because it was not designed or used for the purpose of navigation, nor engaged in the uses of commerce, nor in the transportation of persons or cargo; and to be a ‘vessel’ it must meet some of these tests. * * * This structure, though, as I have said, capable of being moved, was designated to be comparatively permanent. By its nature, build, design, and use, it belonged, I think, to that considerable class of cases, such as dry docks, floating saloons, bathhouses, floating bethels, floating boathouses, and floating bridges, all of which have been held not to be vessels within the maritime law” — citing cases.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““But in that case not only was the structure designed for the uses of commerce, but it was her constant business to move from place to -place, as a vessel, in her peculiar work; in both respects differing from the present case. This structure though, as I have said, capable of being moved, was designed to be comparatively permanent. By its nature, build, design, and use, it belongs, I think, to that considerable class of cases, such as dry docks, floating saloons, bathhouses, floating hotels, floating boathouses, and floating bridges, all of which have been held not to be vessels within the maritime law.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““A floating structure, designed to be moored alongside a wharf, so that carts containing refuse to be dumped into boats can be driven over it from the wharf, is not a vessel within the meaning of the maritime law, and no lien for wharfage attaches to it under that law.””
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.