Loffland Brothers Company v. Everett B. Roberts, O. D. Casing Crews, Inc. v. Continental Oil Company’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
61 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1992 · most notably Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson (1971), Tri-State Oil Tool Industries, Inc. v. Delta Marine Drilling Co. (1969)
61 federal appellate ·
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. · Weyerhaeuser Steamship Co. v. Nacirema Operating Co. · Crumady v. the Joachim Hendrik Fisser · Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp. · Italia Societa Azioni Navigazione v. Oregon Stevedoring Company
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To the extent that they are applicable and not inconsistent . . . with other Federal laws . . . the civil and criminal laws of each adjacent State as of August 7, 1953 are declared to be the law of the United States for that portion of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf, and artificial islands and fixed structures erected thereon, which would be within the area of the State if its boundaries were extended seaward to the outer margin of the outer Continental Shelf ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In Pure Oil Co. v. Snipes, 293 F.2d 60 (5 Cir. 1961) this Court carefully reviewed the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and concluded that Congress deemed the hazards presented by the offshore drilling platforms to be maritime in nature. We therefore held that under the Act federal maritime law was to apply to torts occurring on these offshore platforms. That decision has been consistently followed by this Court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the offshore platform involved in this case was stipulated not to be a vessel, and (the injured employee) was consequently not a seaman.”
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.