Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 669 F.2d 1084 - Pizani v. M/V Cotton Blossom

Pizani v. M/V Cotton Blossom’s Empirical Analysis

669 F.2d 1084 · 1982

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
1
states following
December 2023
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Protectus Alpha Navigation Co. v. North Pacific Grain Growers, Inc. (1985), Sam's Style Shop v. Cosmos Broadcasting Corp. (1982)

18 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

16019821990200020102020decided

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 The Pennsylvania · Wolff v. McDonnell · Kelly v. Smith · Local 100, United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices v. Borden · Compania Anonima Venezolana De Navegacion v. A. J. Perez Export Co.

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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he plaintiff bears the burden of proof to show the amount, as well as the fact, of damages.... [W]hen a defendant shows that the figure claimed by the plaintiff includes non-compensable improvements, the plaintiff must prove ... the amount by which the original figure must be decreased.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A court of admiralty is, as to all matters falling within its jurisdiction, a court of equity. Its hands are not tied up by the rigid and technical rules of the common law, but it administers justice upon the large and liberal principles of courts which exercise general equity jurisdiction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “from the fact that the sole basis of Pizani's proof of the amount of damages, the single lump-sum bid by [the construction firm], afforded no means whereby the district court could have properly determined the actual amount of damages caused by the defendant.”
    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.