Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 528 F.2d 957 - Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Gilmore

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Gilmore’s Empirical Analysis

528 F.2d 957 · 1975

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
October 1998
most recently cited

67 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1998 · most notably Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo (1977), Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Perini North River Associates (1983)

67 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

520197519801990decided

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 Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland · Calbeck v. Travelers Insurance Co. · Ernest Wilmer Crosson, Iii, and Marie Louise Crosson, His Wife v. Maxwell Vance · Onley v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.

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

  1. “realistically significant relationship to 'traditional maritime activity involving navigation and commerce on navigable waters.'”
    16 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “any longshoreman or other person engaged in longshoring operations, and any harborworker including a ship repairman, shipbuilder, and shipbreaker”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “believes that the compensation payable to a longshoreman or a ship repairman or builder should not depend on the fortuitous circumstance of whether the injury occurred on land or over water. . The intent of the Committee is to permit a uniform compensation system to apply to employees who would otherwise be covered by this Act for part of their activity. . . . The Committee does not intend to cover employees who are not engaged in loading, unloading, repairing, or building a vessel, just because they are injured in an area adjoining navigable waters used for such activity.”
    3 later decisions 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.