Moye v. Henderson’s Empirical Analysis
496 F.2d 973 · 1974
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 11 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2012 · most notably Adams v. Montana Power Co. (1975), Kelly v. United States (1976)
37 federal appellate · 11 district · 8 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 Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn · McAllister v. United States · Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen · Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland · Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A federal court sitting in admiralty does not sit as a diversity court; therefore, this is not a case “where state substantive law must be ascertained and applied.” Rather, admiralty suits are governed by federal substantive and procedural law. However, a federal court sitting in admiralty need not “invariably refuse to recognize and enforce a Iiability which the State has established in dealing with a maritime subject. On the contrary, there are numerous instances in which the general maritime law has been modified or supplemented by state action . . ” Thus, admiralty courts may apply state law by express or implied reference or when the federal law of admiralty is incomplete. The Supreme Court has sustained the application of state laws which broaden the scope of liability beyond the general maritime standard. [Citations omitted.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Thus, admiralty courts may apply state law by express or implied reference or when the admiralty law is incomplete .... However, state law may not be applied by a federal court if it would defeat or narrow any substantial admiralty rights of recovery, either as created by federal legislation or as defined by interpretive decisions of the federal courts. In addition, state law may not be applied to “contravene an act of Congress, to prejudice the characteristic features of the maritime law or to disrupt the harmony it strives to bring to international and interstate relations.” Even if state law does not contravene an established principle of admiralty, it may be deemed preempted if it is in direct contravention of the uniformity of the admiralty law in some crucial respect.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * However, a federal court sitting in admiralty need not `invariably refuse to recognize and enforce a liability which the State has established in dealing with a maritime subject. On the contrary, there are numerous instances in which the general maritime law has been modified or supplemented by state action. . .' Just v. Chambers, 312 U.S. 383, 387-388 , 61 S.Ct. 687, 691 , 85 L.Ed. 903 (1941). * * * The Supreme Court has sustained the application of state laws which broaden the scope of liability beyond the general maritime standard. * * *”
2 later decisions 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.