Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 503 F.3d 351 - In re Lockheed Martin Corp.

In re Lockheed Martin Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

503 F.3d 351 · 2007

Citation profile

224
cited by 224 later decisions
1
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1333 · 28 U.S.C. § 1873 · 28 U.S.C. § 46 · 46 U.S.C. § 30104 (Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (Jones Act))

Relies on Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal. · Beacon Theaters Inc v. C Westover · Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp. · Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Ellerman Lines, Ltd. · Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Co.

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

  1. “This case, like Beacon Theatres, involves a declaratory judgment action commenced by the party that, but for the existence of the declaratory judgment procedure, would have been the defendant. Although the action sounds in admiralty, that is only because National won the race to the courthouse door and made the Rule 9(h) designation first. Beacon Theatres, however, requires us to ignore National’s status as the declaratory judgment plaintiff and to instead look to how the action otherwise would have proceeded. Without the declaratory judgment vehicle, Lockheed would have sued National for breach of the insurance policy, a claim over which admiralty and “law” courts have concurrent jurisdiction. As the plaintiff, Lockheed would have been entitled under the saving-to-suitors clause to designate its claim as a legal one as to which there is a Seventh Amendment right to jury trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We agree with National that permitting such counterclaims to effectively undo the plaintiff's Rule 9(h) designation would be inconsistent with the historic admiralty practice of giving the plaintiff the power to determine the manner in which his claims would be tried. We need not decide, however, whether the counterclaims asserted by Lockheed are “true” counterclaims, nor need we decide how a defendant's jury demand would be resolved if his counterclaims were not true counterclaims. We need not consider these issues because we agree with Lockheed that Beacon Theatres requires a jury trial in this case, even if no counterclaims had been filed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of: (1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are entitled.”
    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.