Bominflot, Inc. v. The M/V HENRICH S’s Empirical Analysis
465 F.3d 144 · 2006
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Relies on M/s Bremen v. Zapata off-Shore Company · Lauritzen v. Larsen · Edwards v. City of Goldsboro · The John G. Stevens · Dannebrog v. Signal Oil & Gas 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] Rule 12(b)(6) motion should only be granted if, after accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor, it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[M]aritime liens are stricti juris and cannot be created by agreement between the parties; instead, they arise by operation of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“even if [a supplier] is aware that the vessel with which he is dealing is under charter, he should not be charged with knowledge of the existence of any “no lien” clause absent affirmative evidence that he had received express notice from the owner or other reliable source that the vessel was not to be bound.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.