Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 60 U.S. 82 - Robert Vandewater v. Edward Mills

Robert Vandewater v. Edward Mills’s Empirical Analysis

60 U.S. 82 · 1856

Citation profile

239
cited by 239 later decisions
29
cited 29 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

64 federal appellate · 69 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 239 later decisions (29 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018 · most notably The Osceola (1903), Continental Grain Company v. The Fbl-585 (1960)

64 federal appellate · 69 district · 3 state decisions

35018561860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Andrews v. Wall

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

  1. “`stricti juris,' and cannot be extended by construction, analogy, or inference”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Under the maritime law of the United States the vessel is bound to theeargo, and the cargo to the vessel, for the performance of a contract of affreightment; but the law creates no lien on a vessel as a security for the performance of a contract to transport cargo until some lawful contract of affreightment is made, and a cargo shipped under it.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Now, it Is a doctrine not to be found in any treatise on maritime law that every contract by the owner or master of a vessel for the future employment of it hypothecates the vessel for its performance. This lien or-privilege is founded on the rule of maritime law as stated by Oleirac, 597: ‘Le batel est obligée a, la marchandise et la marchandise au batel.’ The-obligation is mutual and reciprocal.””
    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.