Joseph Anuszewski and Ronald Gutowski v. Dynamic Mariners Corp., Panama’s Empirical Analysis
540 F.2d 757 · 1976
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2003 · most notably Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos (1981), Gay v. Ocean Transport & Trading, Ltd. (1977)
48 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 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 Lucas v. " BRINKNES" SCHIFFAHRTS GES. · Ramirez v. Toko Kaiun K.K. · 391 F. Supp. 1143 - Anuszewski v. Dynamic Mariners Corp. Panama · Croshaw v. Koninklijke Nedlloyd, B. v. Rijswijk
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"§343. Dangerous Conditions Known to or Discoverable by Possessor A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he (a) Knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and (b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger. 343A. Known or Obvious Dangers (1) A possessor of land is not liable to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness. (2) In determining whether the possessor should anticipate harm from a known or obvious danger, the fact that the invitee is entitled to make use of public land, or of the facilities of a public utility, is a factor of importance indicating that the harm should be anticipated.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he Committee does not intend that the negligence remedy authorized in the bill shall be applied differently in different ports depending on the law of the State in which the port may be located. The Committee intends that legal questions which may arise in actions brought under these provisions of the law shall be determined as a matter of Federal law. H.R.Rep. at 4705; S.Rep. at 12.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is equally clear ... that while longshoremen retain the right to recover damages against a vessel, in such an action they occupy the same position as their land-based counterparts.”
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.