Signal Oil & Gas Company v. Barge’s Empirical Analysis
654 F.2d 1164 · 1981
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably S & E Shipping Corp. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. (1982), Browning v. Navarro (1989)
44 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 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
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · McAllister v. United States · United States v. Oregon State Medical Society · In Re Disbarment of Isserman · Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cushing
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]s a preliminary matter, we note that McDermott’s attempt in this damages portion of the proceeding to attribute fault to Williams beyond the negligence of the barge superintendent, found the cause of the accident in the liability hearing, may run afoul of the 'law of the case’ doctrine. This doctrine, 'a restriction self-imposed by the courts on themselves in the interests of judicial efficiency, generally operates to preclude a reexamination of issues decided on appeal, either by the district court on remand or by the appellate court itself upon a subsequent appeal.’ Conway v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., 644 F.2d 1059, 1061 (5th Cir.1981). Unlike res judicata, law of the case does not operate to bar subsequent consideration of matters that could have been, but were not, raised and resolved in the earlier proceeding. Like the doctrine of collateral estoppel, it prohibits re-litigation only of matters decided, expressly or by necessary implication, in the prior appellate proceeding. Id. at 1062 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"7(b) Customer [Phillips] further agrees to protect, indemnify and hold us and our officers and employees free and harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, suits or other litigation ( including all costs thereof and attorney's fees ) of every kind and character whenever arising in favor of Customer or any third party ... on account of bodily injury, death, loss of damage to or loss of use of property ... and financial loss of any kind: ..." (emphasis added) Section (2) of 7(b) goes on to provide: "(2) in any way by act or omission occurring incident to arising out of or in connection with the presence of our employee or our equipment on premises controlled, leased, operated or owned by Customer, or its agents or contractors..."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Plaintiff] argues that it contravenes public policy to allow a company with significant and ongoing business contacts with the State of Louisiana to “evade” the direct action statute by purchase and delivery of insurance by an out-of-state affiliate; what merits, if any, that argument possesses are plainly addressed to the wrong audience. We take the statute as written by the legislature and reject [plaintiffs] theories.”
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.