Moncada v. Lemuria Shipping Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
491 F.2d 470 · 1974
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently June 2004 · most notably Fisher v. Agios Nicolaos V (1980), Vaz Borralho v. Keydril Co. (1983)
22 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
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 Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. · Lauritzen v. Larsen · Hellenic Lines Limited v. Rhoditis · Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Co. · Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. McAllister
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“But . . . our task is not to weigh or balance present against absent contacts, but merely to determine whether the contacts which are present are substantial. 491 F.2d at 472 . (emphasis supplied).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ . . . In determining whether the contacts in a given case are ‘substantial’ the courts have given consideration to the significance attaching to specific contacts. In Lauritzen v. Larsen, supra, the Supreme Court enumerated the following contacts as worthy of consideration: (1) the place of the wrongful act; (2) the law of the flag; (3) the allegiance or domicile of the injured party; (4) the allegiance of the shipowner; (5) the place where the contract of employment was made; (6) the inaccessibility of a foreign forum; and (7) the law of the forum. 345 U.S. at 583-592, 73 S.Ct. 921 . In Rhoditis the Court held that this list is not exhaustive. It decided that the shipowner’s base of operations is also an important contact and that ‘there may well be others.’ 398 U.S. at 309, 90 S.Ct. 1731 . Thus we must consider each factor and its importance in the context of this case.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply; and in case of the death of any seaman as a result of any such personal injury the personal representative of such seaman may maintain an action for damages at law with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States conferring or regulating the right of action for death in the case of railway employees shall be applicable. Jurisdiction in such actions shall be under the court of the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rode v. Sedco, Inc.
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.