Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 47 F.2d 286 - The Showboat

The Showboat’s Empirical Analysis

47 F.2d 286 · 1930

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
states following
October 2008
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently October 2008 · most notably Griffith v. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp. (1975), McCarthy v. The Bark Peking (1983)

9 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

8019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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

Applies 1 U.S.C. § 3

Relies on New Bedford Dry Dock Co. v. Purdy · Cope v. Vallette Dry Dock Co. · Hartsville Oil Mill v. United States · Evansville & Bowling Green Packet Co. v. Chero Cola Bottling Co. · Eastern S. S. Corp. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Of course each case depends on its particular facts; and structures shade off from what is obviously a vessel to what is obviously not. Here we have a five masted schooner, which, if the sails which are now on board were bent on, the booms being arranged to swing over the house, could go to sea; or she could be towed as she now is anywhere that a barge can be taken. She has a crew consisting of a licensed master or mate and two or three seamen. Her mooring lines and chains can be readily cast off; and the electric wires are so fitted as to be easily detachable. While her owners had not, at the time when the libel was filed, any present intention to use her for transportation purposes, I do not think that fact decisive. She was still a ‘vessel’ in my opinion within the admiralty jurisdiction.” 47 F.2d at 287 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The word ‘vessel’ includes every description of water craft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    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.