Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 438 F.2d 642 - Debose v. MS Loppersum

Debose v. MS Loppersum’s Empirical Analysis

438 F.2d 642 · 1971

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp. · Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp. · Reed v. MV Foylebank · Louis Santiny v. Coastal Boat Operators, Inc., and Insurance Company of North America, No. 27986 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I

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

  1. ““While the plaintiff and others were loading bundles of lumber aboard the ship, difficulty was experienced in the placement of one of the last bundles. The plaintiff elected to go beneath the deck to guide the bundle into place and he contends that while he was 'guiding’ the lumber he injured his back. The district court found from the evidence that the equipment involved was reasonably fit for use in stowage of the cargo in question and that the method of stowage was reasonably safe. The court further found that the plaintiff’s election to go beneath deck was his own decision and was not ordered or recommended by the vessel owners or the stevedoring company for which he worked. Giving full consideration to all of the facts, it was decided that the plaintiff had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants did not furnish the plaintiff a seaworthy vessel nor did the plaintiff show that his injury was caused by any negligence attributable to the defendants or by an unseaworthy condition. The court concluded, therefore, that the injury to the plaintiff was ‘the result of his own actions and not of any unseaworthy condition, insufficient personnel or equipment, or improper or reasonably unsafe method or negligence on the part of anyone except himself.’ ” 438 F.2d at 642-643 .”
    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.