Lemon v. Bank Lines, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
656 F.2d 110 · 1981
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably Swentek v. Usair, Inc. (1987), Theriot v. Bay Drilling Corp. (1986)
37 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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. § 905 · 33 U.S.C. § 941
Relies on The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Gasoline Products Co. v. Champlin Refining Co. · Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos · Padilla-Martinez v. United States · Munoz v. Flota Merchante Grancolombiana, S.A.
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... The Supreme Court clearly established that the ability of a longshoreman to recover cannot turn on who was in the best position to recognize and remedy a dangerous condition when that condition was created by a vessel owner who knew or should have known of its existence prior to the stevedore’s operations. The Court specifically imposed a duty on the shipowner to at least warn the stevedore of any dangerous condition, existing at the outset of the stevedoring operations, of which the shipowner should have been aware through the exercise of reasonable care. In this case, the jury found that the defendant shipowner was negligent in the method and manner of stowing the cargo and that the negligence proximately contributed to the plaintiffs injury. The evidence supporting their verdict included the fact that the chief mate had actual knowledge of the improper loading technique and failed to take actions to either correct the stowage or warn the plaintiff or his co-workers of the dangerous conditions contained within the stow. Considering the appropriate interpretation of section 905(b) provided by De Los Santos , and viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, we conclude that the district court erred in granting a j.n.o.v. in the case at bar.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The shipowner is therefore responsible for eliminating dangerous conditions which exist at the outset of the stevedor-ing operations, but has ‘no duty by way of supervision of inspection to exercise reasonable care to discover dangerous conditions that develop within the confines of the cargo operations.’ It is the stevedore who must see to the safety of cargo operations.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“decision to grant a new trial may be reversed only for a clear abuse of discretion.”
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.