Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 396 U.S. 212 - Nacirema Operating Co. v. Johnson

Nacirema Operating Co. v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

387
cited by 387 later decisions
29
cited 29 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
March 2020
most recently cited

177 federal appellate · 14 district · 57 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 387 later decisions (29 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2020 · most notably Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland (1972), Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo (1977)

177 federal appellate · 14 district · 57 state decisions — followed in 12 states

18001969197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedMarine Stevedoring Corp. v. Oosting (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 33 U.S.C. § 901

Relies on Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen · Desist v. United States · Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · Difronzo v. United States · Gutierrez v. Waterman Steamship Corp.

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 387 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “disability or death result(ed) from an injury occurring upon the navigable waters of the United States (including any dry dock)....”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “longshoremen injured on a pier by pier-based equipment would still remain outside the [Extension] Act.”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"The present Act, insofar as longshoremen and ship builders and repairmen are concerned, covers only injuries which occur `upon the navigable waters of the United States.' Thus, coverage of the present Act stops at the water's edge; injuries occurring on land are covered by State Workmen's Compensation laws. The result is a disparity in benefits payable for death or disability for the same type of injury depending on which side of the water's edge and in which State the accident occurs. "To make matters worse, most State Workmen's Compensation laws provide benefits which are inadequate; even the better State laws generally come nowhere close to meeting the National Commission on State Workmen's Compensation Law recommended standard . . . ."”
    6 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.