Stockstill v. Gypsum Transportation’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.2d 1112 · 1979
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Porter v. American Optical Corp. (1981), Guidry v. Continental Oil Co. (1981)
21 federal appellate · 1 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 33 U.S.C. § 901 · 33 U.S.C. § 905
Relies on The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · Gay v. Ocean Transport & Trading, Ltd. · Napoli v. Transpacific Carriers Corp. · Hess v. Upper Mississippi Towing Corp.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i)f 'either the (contractor) or his employee is in (a) better position to appreciate fully the (obvious) risk and avoid the danger, particularly where the danger is within the control of the (contractor's) own employees', the vessel owner will not be liable.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“On motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict the Court should consider all of the evidence — not just that evidence which supports the non-mover’s case — but in the light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable to the party opposed to the motion. If the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the Court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict, granting of the motions is proper. On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence opposed to the motion, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motions should be denied, and the case submitted to the jury. A mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient to present a question to the jury. . .. There must be a conflict in substantial evidence to create a jury question. However, it is the function of the jury as the traditional finder of the facts, and not the Court, to weigh conflicting evidence and inferences, and determine the credibility of witnesses (footnote omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Appellant relies heavily on the fact that some members of the ship’s crew were on board the vessel at the time of the accident. Mere presence of the vessel’s crew on the ship, however, does not prove knowledge of the hazardous condition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hill v. Texaco, Inc.
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.