Clemons v. Mitsui O. S. K. Lines, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
596 F.2d 746 · 1979
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently April 2002 · most notably Ramsey v. American Air Filter Co. (1985), Freeman v. Franzen (1982)
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1333 · 33 U.S.C. § 901 · 33 U.S.C. § 905
Relies on Gay v. Ocean Transport & Trading, Ltd. · Napoli v. Transpacific Carriers Corp. · Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co. · Chavis v. Finnlines Ltd., O/Y · Joseph Anuszewski and Ronald Gutowski v. Dynamic Mariners Corp., Panama
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“should be denied where the evidence, along with the inferences to be reasonably drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing such motion, is such that reasonable men in a fair and impartial exercise of their judgment may reach different conclusions.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... we read Section 343 together with Section 343A not as providing defenses but as defining when it is negligent to allow the existence of a dangerous condition. Under the Restatement, when the danger is open and obvious and in addition is avoidable in the exercise of ordinary care and therefore the harm is not foreseeable, it is not negligent to allow the danger to exist.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although § 905(b) may be construed to “demonstrate that ... the major responsibility for the proper and safe conduct of the work was to be borne by the stevedore,” ... or that “the primary duty to provide a safe place to work is on the stevedore,” .. . neither “major responsibility” nor “primary duty” may be read as “sole responsibility.””
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.