Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., S.A.’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
111 federal appellate · 32 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 387 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably Thomas v. Newton International Enterprises (1994), Keller v. United States (1994)
111 federal appellate · 32 district · 30 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 33 U.S.C. § 901 · 33 U.S.C. § 904 · 33 U.S.C. § 905 · 33 U.S.C. § 933 · 33 U.S.C. § 941
Relies on Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki · Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp. · United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. · Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Ellerman Lines, Ltd. · Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos
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 387 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“exercise ordinary care under the circumstances”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“warn the stevedore of any hazards on the ship or with respect to its equipment that are known to the vessel or should be known to it in the exercise of reasonable care, that would likely be encountered by the stevedore in the course of his cargo operations and that are not known by the stevedore and would not be obvious to or anticipated by him if reasonably competent in the performance of his work.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The first, which courts have come to call the “turnover duty,” relates to the condition of the ship upon the commencement of stevedoring operations. The second duty, applicable once stevedoring operations have begun, provides that a shipowner must exercise reasonable care to prevent injuries to longshoremen in areas that remain under the “active control of the vessel.” The third duty, called the “duty to intervene,” concerns the vessel’s obligations with regard to cargo operations in areas under the principal control of the independent stevedore.”
10 later decisions 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.