Landry v. Two R. Drilling Co.’s Empirical Analysis
511 F.2d 138 · 1975
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently April 2009 · most notably Davis v. Hill Engineering, Inc. (1977), Allen v. Seacoast Products, Inc. (1980)
52 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
Relies on Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn · Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. · Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet · Alaska Steamship Co. v. Petterson · Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Smith
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he burden on the plaintiff to prove proximate cause in actions based on the Jones Act and general maritime law is very light.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“where . . . there is liability under both a Jones Act claim and a general maritime claim for unseaworthiness . . . Gaudet damages (are) proper”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Because contributory negligence is a factor for determining the comparative liability between the parties, whether under the Jones Act or general maritime law, Pope & Talbot v. Hawn, supra, and because we see no reason to disturb the jury’s finding on liability, II supra, any award in a new trial solely on the issue of damages must be reduced by 20% by the Court.” 511 F.2d 143 at n.4 .”
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.