The Arfeld’s Empirical Analysis
42 F.2d 745 · 1930
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 1990
11 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 The Oregon · Alexandre v. MacHan · The Victory & The Plymothian · The Umbria · The Ludvig Holberg
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While it was undoubtedly the duty of the Arfeld as the ascending vessel to give the first signal, still her failure to do so was not the proximate cause of the collision and did not give the Lacuna, as the descending steamer, the right to initiate passing signals, but, on the contrary, it clearly was the duty of the Lacuna, according to pilot rule 1, to stop and back if necessary until signals for passing could be given and understood.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * The very foundation of the crossing case rule is that the burdened vessel, by observing the continuous course and fixed speed of the privileged vessel. knows absolutely where she will be and how she will be heading at any future movement. * * *”
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.