542 So. 2d 742 - Dean v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 2005
3 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
Applies 33 U.S.C. § 901 · 33 U.S.C. § 902 · 33 U.S.C. § 903 · 33 U.S.C. § 905
Relies on Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · Pelaes v. United States · Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland · Foremost Insurance v. Richardson · National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Idaho
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The only vehicle involved was the barge into which plaintiff fell when he lost his footing. We consider the plaintiff's fall into the barge fortuitous since the plaintiff might just as likely have fallen back onto the wharf. Thus, the involvement of the barge is somewhat attenuated and, in itself, does not create a significant nexus to maritime activity. The instrumentality involved was the piling which shifted under the plaintiff's weight. It appears from the record that the piling was part of the wharf and for this reason we consider it to be landward of navigable waters. Because we consider plaintiff's fall into the barge purely fortuitous, we hold that the fact that the plaintiff's fall had its inception on land should carry more weight than the fact his injury culminated when he landed on the barge. * * * In addition, plaintiff's injuries are indistinguishable from injuries sustained in land-based slip and fall claims, despite that the injuries culminated on the barge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Appellant's reliance on Director and LeMelle is misplaced. Federal standards which are used to determine the functions and roles of the parties in the analysis of maritime nexus for purposes of establishing federal admiralty jurisdiction or a 905(b) action have proved more stringent than those used to determine whether a claimant is engaged in maritime employment and thus a covered "employee" under 902(3) who is entitled to compensation benefits under the LHWCA. Id., 542 So.2d at 746 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the proper question is whether the actual tasks the worker performs bears [sic] any inherent relationship to maritime activity.”
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.