Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 394 U.S. 404 - Federal Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Burnside Shipping Co.

Federal Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Burnside Shipping Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

495
cited by 495 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

228 federal appellate · 20 district · 64 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 495 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018 · most notably Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos (1981), Allstate Insurance v. Hague (1981)

228 federal appellate · 20 district · 64 state decisions — followed in 17 states

1760196919701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedthe decision below (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 33 U.S.C. § 905 · 33 U.S.C. § 933

Relies on Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki · Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp. · Rodriguez v. New York · Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique · Mahnich v. Southern 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 495 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “with reasonable safety to persons and property.”
    22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “in the relationship between the employer and third persons as it did in imposing absolute liability between employer and employee. 23 The Supreme Court's interpretation of the LHWCA in Burnside does not control the interpretation we must give the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act. Moreover, we find a significant difference between the two statutory schemes. The Pennsylvania statute exempts an employer from liability to a”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the duty of exercising due care 'under the circumstances,'”
    4 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.