Carrillo v. Westbulk’s Empirical Analysis
514 F.2d 1214 · 1975
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently May 2000 · most notably United States v. Barrett (1976), Wells Real Estate, Inc. v. Greater Lowell Board of Realtors (1988)
37 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp. · Weyerhaeuser Steamship Co. v. Nacirema Operating Co. · Cole v. United States · White v. United States · Johnson v. Stevenson
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The manner in which objections were sought to be preserved after the charge paid lip service to the requirements we have previously voiced, (citation omitted) but defeats their purpose. We scarcely need to repeat that the purpose is at least two-fold, to make it abundantly clear to the court not only what is the party’s position, but in what way the charge is believed to depart therefrom, and to give the court full opportunity to make corrections, (citations omitted) The duty imposed upon counsel of “stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection” cannot normally be performed until the charge has been heard in its entirety. Usually until then it cannot be told “distinctly” to what extent a request has not been given. The court may believe that it has fully done so. As to this an a priori exception “to the extent that the request is not given in substance”, meets none of the rules requirements, (citations omitted). In fact, we find little distinction between what happened in the case at bar and a so called general exception to the charge, which is universally condemned, (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a stevedore's warranty of workmanlike performance encompasses a promise to provide longshoremen free of negligence. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“before the jury returns to consider its verdict”
1 later decision 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.