Post v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
60 U.S. 150 · 1856
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 20 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2015 · most notably United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1942), Fred Fisher Music Co. v. M. Witmark & Sons (1943)
23 federal appellate · 20 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.
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ The case before us is properly one of derelict. In such cases it has been frequently asserted, as a general rule, that the compensation should not be more than half, nor less than a third, of the property saved. But we agree with Dr. Lushington (The Florence, 20 E. L. & C. R. 622) that the reward in derelict cases should be governed, by the same principles as other salvage cases, namely, danger to property, value, risk of life, skill, labor, and the duration of the service;” and that “no valid reason can be assigned for fixing a reward for salving derelict property at a moiety, or any given proportion, and the true principle is adequate reward, according to the circumstances of the case.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Courts of admiralty will enforce a contract made for salvage service and salvage compensation where the salvor has not taken advantage of his power to make an unreasonable bargain.””
3 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.