Fusco v. Perini North River Associates’s Empirical Analysis
622 F.2d 1111 · 1980
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2004 · most notably Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Perini North River Associates (1983), Pippen v. Shell Oil Co. (1981)
29 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
Relies on M. Morrin & Son Co. v. Burgess Construction Co. · Pfeiffer Company Inc v. Ford · Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Gilmore · Perini North River Associates v. Fusco · Fusco v. Perini North River Associates
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'significant relationship to navigation or to commerce on navigable waters.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““In the cases at bar the claimants’ activities had nothing significant to do with navigation or with commerce on navigable waters. They were engaged exclusively in constructing a sewage disposal plant. It is not significant that the plant was being constructed so that sewage would not cause pollution of navigable waters; nor that the claimants performed part or all of their work while upon floating stages or upon barges. The only sense in which the claimants’ activities were maritime was in the sense of their locus. To base a decision upon the locus of work is to found it upon a geographic concept — a foundation precluded by the reasoning in the Ford case. “Parallel reasoning leads us to hold that the claimants were not within the meaning of § 2(3) ‘harborworkers.’ As there used, the term ‘harborworker’ does not refer to the place where the employee works but to the activity he performs. To come within § 2(3) a harborworker’s activity must relate to ships, as is shown by the test of § 2(3) which refers to a ‘harborworker including a ship repairman, shipbuilder, and shipbreaker.’ ” Id.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The term ‘employee’ means any person engaged in maritime employment, including any longshoreman or other person engaged in longshoring operations, and any harborworkers including a ship repairman, shipbuilder, and shipbreaker, but such term does not include a master or member of a crew of any vessel, or any person engaged by the master to load or unload or repair any small vessel under eighteen tons net.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.