Smith Petroleum Service, Inc. v. Monsanto Chemical Co.’s Empirical Analysis
420 F.2d 1103 · 1970
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2009 · most notably Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger (1978), National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. New York (1973)
58 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
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 Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki · Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp. · Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn · Weyerhaeuser Steamship Co. v. Nacirema Operating Co. · Crumady v. the Joachim Hendrik Fisser
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In short, Ryan was conceived as an admiralty concept, and its explicatory progeny have not denied its paternal thesis. We find nothing in the wake of Ryan to lead us to apply its principles to landlubbers. It is abundantly clear that no tributary of Ryan reaches the Brookhaven Oil Field in Lincoln County, Mississippi, which is many miles inland from both the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Consequently, in deciding this issue we cannot distill Mississippi law through a federal sieve; we must completely abandon the admiralty domain and repair to Mississippi’s inland terrain. Looking solely to Mississippi’s independent jurisprudence, we are unable to find any authority clearly indicating that Mississippi recognizes a Ryan-type implied contract of indemnity in a situation such as the case before us. Accordingly, we must conclude that Monsanto is not entitled to indemnity on the basis of its contract theory. The trial court’s conclusion to the contrary was erroneous. 420 F.2d at 1111 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“After the plaintiff, in an action tried by the court without a jury, has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant, without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. The court as trier of the facts may then determine them and render judgment against the plaintiff or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all of the evidence. If the court renders judgment on the merits against the plaintiff, the court shall make findings as provided in Rule 52(a).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“As we view the facts, * * * this contention [that indemnity should be allowed on the ground that one party's negligence was active and the other's passive] has no merit. [SIGNAL] and [ODECO] were in pari delicto; each was guilty of acts or omissions which could have proximately caused the [injury complained of].”
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.