Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 596 F.2d 609 - Steuart Transportation Co. v. Allied Towing Corp.

Steuart Transportation Co. v. Allied Towing Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

596 F.2d 609 · 1979

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
February 2022
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 12 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably New York v. Shore Realty Corp. (1985), United States v. Monsanto Co. (1988)

26 federal appellate · 12 district ·

330197919801990200020102020decided

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 Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co. · Environmental Protection Agency v. California Ex Rel. State Water Resources Control Board · Wyandotte Transportation Co. v. United States · Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board · Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson

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.

  1. “(f)(1) Except where an owner or operator can prove that a discharge was caused solely by (A) an act of God, (B) an- act of war, (C) negligence on the part of the United States 'Government, or (D) an act or omission of a third party without regard to whether any such act or omission was or was not negligent, or any combination of the foregoing clauses, such owner or operator of any vessel from which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged in violation of subsection (b)(3) of this section shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, be liable to the United States Government for the actual costs incurred under subsection (c) of this section for the removal of such oil or substance by the United States Government in an amount not to exceed, in the case of an inland oil barge $125 per gross ton of such barge, or $125,-000, whichever is greater, and in the case of any other vessel, $150 per gross ton of such vessel (or, for a vessel carrying oil or hazardous substances as cargo, $250,000), whichever is greater, except that where the United States can show that such discharge was the result of willful negligence or willful misconduct within the privity and knowledge of the owner, such owner or operator shall be liable to the United States Government for the full amount of'*such costs. Such costs shall conr stitute a maritime lien on such vessel which may be recovered in an action in rem in the district court of the United States for any district within which any vessel may ”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(o)(1) Nothing in this section shall affect or modify in any way the obligations of any owner or operator of any vessel, or of any owner or operator of any onshore facility or offshore facility to any person or agency under any provision of law for damages to any publicly owned or privately owned property resulting from a discharge of any oil or hazardous substance or from the removal of any such oil or hazardous substance. (2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preempting any State or political subdivision thereof from imposing any requirement or liability with respect to the discharge of oil or hazardous substance into any waters within such State. (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting or modifying any other existing authority of any Federal department, agency, or instrumentality, relative to onshore or offshore facilities under this chapter or any other provision of law, or to affect any State or local law not in conflict with this section.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Extensive testimony was taken and subsequent extensive discussion occurred in executive session on the factors which should be considered in determining the type of liability. Among those factors were (1) the effect of too rigid a liability test on maritime commerce; (2) the availability of insurance for any specific amount or type of liability; (3) the economic impact of any specific amount of liability on the owner of the vessel, the shipper of oil and the consumer; and (4) the impact of a burdensome liability test on the U.S. Government and the people of the United States.”
    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.