Canizzo v. Farrell Lines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
579 F.2d 682 · 1978
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2012 · most notably Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos (1981), Mattivi v. South African Marine Corp. (1980)
36 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Amperex Electronic Corp. v. New York Racing Assn., Inc. · Brulotte Et Al. v. Thys Company · 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In retrospect it seems to have been a mistake for courts to give such talismanic significance to §§ 343 and 343A of the [Restatement (Second)] as has sometimes been done. These sections are awkwardly drafted; the framers had no notion that they would be applied to the tangled situations of ship loading or unloading; and they must be read together with [§§ 409-29 of the Restatement (Second)]. In dealing with § 905(b), courts would do better to consider the policies that actuated Congress in adopting the 1972 amendments.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““Where, as in [Napoli], there is no independent contractor, it is part of the ship’s duty to exercise reasonable care to inspect its own workers’ workplace, to remove grease spills, etc. In such a case there is no ‘independent contractor’ with primary responsibility upon whom the ship may properly rely . . . Things are very different when the longshoreman works for an independent stevedore who has primary responsibility for the workplace.” (emphasis in original).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Too strict a view of a shipowner’s liability in these situations would do much to diminish the salutary effects of the 1972 amendments by, in effect, making shipowners liable, once again, on what is akin to an unseaworthiness standard Too lax a view would specifically contradict the Congressional intention to make shipowners liable for their own negligence under the amended statute. Id. at 685 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.