Labanca v. Ostermunchner’s Empirical Analysis
664 F.2d 65 · 1981
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently August 2005
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania Colombiana Del Caribe, S. A. · Seawind Compania, S. A. v. Crescent Line, Inc. · Chilean Line Inc. v. United States · 476 F. Supp. 119 - Integrated Container Service, Inc. v. Starlines Container Shipping, Ltd. · 422 F. Supp. 1335 - East Asiatic Co., Ltd. v. Indomar, Ltd.
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“With respect to any admiralty or maritime claim in personam a verified complaint may contain a prayer for process to attach the defendant's goods and chattels ... if the defendant cannot be found within the district.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The issue before us now is whether the [defendants] could be found within the Middle District of Florida at the time appellant filed this action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“for purposes of Rule B. This argument is without merit. On the facts provided in Maritrans' sworn affidavit and verified complaint, the district court properly found that Tsacaba was doing business in the Commonwealth and the court was correct in not allowing Maritrans to change the affidavit facts later for purposes of defeating Tsacaba's motion to quash the attachment 9 In jurisdictions in which there is no local admiralty rule on point, federal case law has developed a two part test for determining whether a defendant can be found”
1 later decision 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.