Brown v. Itt Rayonier, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
497 F.2d 234 · 1974
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2000 · most notably Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis (1995), Davis v. Hill Engineering, Inc. (1977)
35 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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
Applies 33 U.S.C. § 901 · 33 U.S.C. § 902 · 33 U.S.C. § 905
Relies on Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki · Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp. · Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn · Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen · Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas
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.
“more frequently an analytical starting point than a self-executing formula.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The basic test used in this circuit for determining crew member status is that stated in Offshore Co. v. Robison, 5 Cir., 1959, 266 F.2d 769 , at 779: `there is an evidentiary basis for a Jones Act case to go to the jury: (1) if there is evidence that the injured workman was assigned permanently to a vessel (including special purpose structures not usually employed as a means of transport by water but designed to float on water) or performed a substantial part of his work on the vessel; and (2) if the capacity in which he was employed or the duties which he performed contributed to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission, or to the operation or welfare of the vessel in terms of its maintenance during its movement or during anchorage for its future trips.' See Dugas v. Pelican Construction Co., 5 Cir., 1973, 481 F.2d 773 ; Ross v. Mobil Oil Corp., 5 Cir., 1973, 474 F.2d 989 ; Keener v. Transworld Drilling Co., 5 Cir., 1972, 468 F.2d 729 ; Labit v. Carey Salt Co., 5 Cir., 1970, 421 F.2d 1333 ; Thomas v. Peterson Marine Service, Inc., 5 Cir., 1969, 411 F.2d 592 ; Rotolo v. Halliburton Co., 5 Cir., 1963, 317 F.2d 9 ; Braniff v. Jackson Ave.-Gretna Ferry, Inc., 5 Cir., 1960, 280 F.2d 523 . * * * * * * In the present case we confront a ... situation .. . in which the injured worker was aboard the vessel while it was in transit, and in which he was aboard strictly for the purpose of aiding in its navigation. Albeit his duties aboard would be brief, and his”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In short, we think that something other than the mere fact of a temporary relationship is involved in most cases which profess to deny seaman's status because of an absence of a permanent connection with the vessel.”
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.