John H. Smith v. M/v Captain Fred, Her Engines, Boilers, Furniture, Gear, Tackle and Apparel, in Rem, John H. Smith v. Delta Iron Works, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
546 F.2d 119 · 1977
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently October 1993 · most notably Bell v. Industrial Vangas, Inc. (1981), Longmire v. Sea Drilling Corp. (1980)
39 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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 Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki · Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp. · Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc. · Reed v. Steamship Yaka · Topsy's International, Inc. v. Seiffer
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““employed by the vessel to provide ship building or repair services ... if the injury was caused by the negligence of persons engaged in providing ship building or repair services to the vessel.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * an employee may sue his employer qua vessel if he was injured as a result of the vessel's negligence.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If such person was employed to provide shipbuilding, repairing, or breaking services and such person’s employer was the owner, owner pro hac vice, agent, operator, or charterer of the vessel, no such action shall be permitted, in whole or in part or directly or indirectly, against the injured person's employer (in any capacity, including as the vessel’s owner, owner pro hac vice, agent, operator, or charterer) or against the employees of the employer....”
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.