LeBlanc v. Two-R Drilling Co.’s Empirical Analysis
527 F.2d 1316 · 1976
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently July 2003 · most notably Kaspar Wire Works, Inc. v. Leco Engineering & Machine, Inc. (1978), Martinez v. Dixie Carriers, Inc. (1976)
24 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki · Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp. · Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc. · Crumady v. the Joachim Hendrik Fisser · Italia Societa Azioni Navigazione v. Oregon Stevedoring Company
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the contractual obligation to perform duties under a contract with reasonable safety.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““During the laydown on November 18, 1971 some drilling mud and water accumulated on the drilling floor of shipowner’s rig and apparently was tracked onto the landing and stairway going down to the piperack by contractor’s employees. As LeBlanc began to descend the stairs from the drilling floor to the piperack he slipped on the landing, fell down the stairs and injured his left leg. LeBlanc testified that though he knew the stairway was slippery, neither he nor any other employee of Gulf Coast had taken any steps to remove mud from their shoes, the piperack, the hand rails, the stairs, or the landing at the top of the stairs nor had they complained to shipowner of the presence of mud on the stairs, landing and piperack, or asked shipowner to suspend operations until the condition was remedied. (Footnote omitted).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““If the trial court finds that contractor was aware of the dangerous condition or its employees had produced it by tracking the slime on or over the stairway steps, the court should have then determined whether contractor itself took steps (a) to remedy the unsafe condition, (b) inform shipowner of the condition and request shipowner or his crew to remedy the condition, and (c) on shipowner’s failure or refusal to correct the condition whether contractor suspended operations. . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.