Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 484 F.2d 840 - Ernest Wilmer Crosson, Iii, and Marie Louise Crosson, His Wife v. Maxwell Vance

Ernest Wilmer Crosson, Iii, and Marie Louise Crosson, His Wife v. Maxwell Vance’s Empirical Analysis

484 F.2d 840 · 1973

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
August 1995
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1995 · most notably Foremost Insurance v. Richardson (1982), Lane v. United States (1975)

27 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

310197319801990decided

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 Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland · The Harrisburg · Coryell v. Phipps · The Plymouth · Levinson v. Deupree

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

  1. “The admiralty jurisdiction in England and in this country was born of a felt need to protect the domestic shipping industry in its competition with foreign shipping, and to provide a uniform body of law for the governance of domestic and foreign shipping, engaged in the movement of commercial vessels from state to state and to and from foreign states. Crosson v. Vance (4th Cir., 1973), 484 F.2d 840, 840 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““We need only go as far as the Supreme Court’s explicit direction to hold that admiralty jurisdiction does not reach a claim for personal injury by a water skier against the allegedly negligent operator of the tow boat.” Crosson v. Vance, 484 F.2d 840, 842 (1973).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “If the tort was committed on navigable waters it was within the admiralty jurisdiction. If the injury was suffered on land, even though the offending instrument was a vessel afloat on navigable waters, the matter was beyond the jurisdiction of admiralty.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.