Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 52 F.1d 403 - Mitchell Transp. Co. v. Chisholm

Mitchell Transp. Co. v. Chisholm’s Empirical Analysis

52 F. 403 · 1892

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
May 1961
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 10 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently May 1961

6 federal appellate · 10 district ·

9018921900191019201930194019501960decided

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 The Hope · Sanborn v. Titan · Chisholm v. The Steamer Alex. Folsom

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

  1. ““Under these conditions, is the libelants’ theory that the sheer of the Devereaux and consequent collision were caused by ‘suction’ from the Folsom’s passing at too great a speed established? We are clearly of the opinion that It Is not. "When passing through the water, vessels in proportion to their size and speed produce or give rise to displacement waves, which run out quartering astern from their course, and affect smaller vessels within their reach. The cases are numerous in which larger vessels have been condemned for injuries caused to smaller vessels from such displacement waves. It is also shown by the testimony in this case that when vessels are passing each other in the same direction there is a tendency upon the part of the smaller vessel to be drawn out of her course and towards the track of the larger as the latter passes. In the case of The City of Cleveland, Mr. Justice Brown, then district judge, said that, if vessels are going in the same direction, and passing near each other, it [suction] has a very powerful effect to deflect the weaker vessel from her course, and that the suction of two vessels meeting and passing each other is not very powerful, its operation being too short to make any particular effect upon the action of the two vessels, ‘unless one is much larger than the other.’ The theory of suction In meeting a.nd passing-vessels is that the current, which rushes in astern to fill the displacement of water caused by the larger or more rapidly movin”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. The Ohio
  2. ““The suction of two vessels passing each other in different directions is not very powerful. It is too short to have any particular effect upon the action of the two vessels unless one Is much larger than the other; whereas, if they are going in the same direction, and passing near eacli other, it has a more powerful effect to deflect the weaker vessel from her course.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The suction of two vessels passing each other is not very powerful. It is too short to have any particular effect upon the action ol' the two vessels, unless one is much larger than the other; whereas, if they are going in the same direction, and passing near each 'other it has a very powerful effect to deflect the weaker vessel from her course.””
    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.