Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 481 F.2d 764 - United States v. Bissett-Berman Corporation, Pike Corporation of America, Western Offshore Drilling and Exploration Company and M/v Nesco I

United States v. Bissett-Berman Corporation, Pike Corporation of America, Western Offshore Drilling and Exploration Company and M/v Nesco I’s Empirical Analysis

481 F.2d 764 · 1973

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably William Radobenko and Mary G. Radobenko, His Wife, Individually and as Husband and Wife v. Automated Equipment Corporation, a California Corporation (1975), Great Western Bank & Trust v. Kotz (1976)

20 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

16019731980199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1345 · 41 U.S.C. § 321

Relies on Reed v. Steamship Yaka · United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. · Guzman v. Pichirilo · The China · Tilton v. Richardson

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

  1. “the authority of The China, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 53, 19 L.Ed. 67 (1868), for the proposition that an in rem libel against the ship may be maintained when an action against its owner or operator can not, has been weakened if not destroyed by subsequent cases.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving parties are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
    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.