Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 670 F.2d 5 - Verderame v. Torm Lines

Verderame v. Torm Lines’s Empirical Analysis

670 F.2d 5 · 1982

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
February 1992
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 33 U.S.C. § 933

Relies on Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique · American Stevedores, Inc. v. Porello · Rodriguez v. Compass Shipping Co. · Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Roberts · Vernon Gatling and Benjamin Wright, Jr. v. Atlantic Richfield Company

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

  1. “The legislative history of the statute as outlined by the Supreme Court and ourselves in Rodriguez , makes clear that Congress’ purpose was to provide the injured longshoreman, after he knows what his award of compensation benefits will be, with a period of six months within which to decide whether in light of all of the circumstances, including the settlement arrived at with the employer without proof of any fault, to bring an action against a third party seeking damages based on its negligence. The longshoreman cannot be expected to make an intelligent decision of this issue until he is in a position to appraise the full nature and extent of his injuries and the shipowner’s negligence, and until he knows the total amount of compensation which he can be sure of receiving from the employer or its insurer. To hold otherwise would be to force the longshoreman to proceed in the dark. On the other hand, once he is armed with information as to the total benefits he will receive from the insurer, he can, with knowledge of the seriousness of his injuries and the extent of the shipowner’s negligence, intelligently decide whether an action for damages against the shipowner would be likely to .yield him any recovery over and above the compensation benefits plus the fee he would be required to pay to his attorney.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(a)cceptance of compensation under an award in a compensation order.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Acceptance of such compensation under an award in a compensation order filed by the deputy commissioner or Board shall operate as an assignment to the employer of all right of the person entitled to compensation to recover damages against such third person unless such person shall commence an action against such third person within six months after such award.””
    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.