Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 577 F.2d 1196 - Occidental of Umm al Qaywayn, Inc. v. A Certain Cargo of Petroleum Laden Aboard Tanker Dauntless Colocotronis

Occidental of Umm al Qaywayn, Inc. v. A Certain Cargo of Petroleum Laden Aboard Tanker Dauntless Colocotronis’s Empirical Analysis

577 F.2d 1196 · 1978

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
2
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Callejo v. Bancomer, S.A. (1985), Lane v. Halliburton (2008)

21 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

17019781980199020002010decided

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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Baker v. Carr · William Marbury v. James Madison · Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino

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

  1. “(1) “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;” (2) “a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;” (3) “the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion;” (4) “the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government;” (5) “an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;” (6) “or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[N]o court in the United States shall decline . . . to make a determination on the merits . . . in a case [involving confiscations of property] . . . by an act of [] state in violation of the principles of international law . . . .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The Hickenlooper Amendment [] prevents any United States court from applying the federal act of state doctrine if the confiscation violated international law.”
    2 later decisions 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.