Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 674 F.2d 447 - Hill v. Texaco, Inc.

Hill v. Texaco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

674 F.2d 447 · 1982

Citation profile

92
cited by 92 later decisions
5
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

54 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Helaire v. Mobil Oil Co. (1983), Treadaway v. Societe Anonyme Louis-Dreyfus (1990)

54 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions

5601982199020002010decided

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 United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos · Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique · West v. United States · Gay v. Ocean Transport & Trading, 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[i]f the shipowner becomes aware during the stevedore's work that the ship or its gear poses a danger to the longshoremen, and if the shipowner also learns that the stevedore is acting unreasonably in failing to protect the longshoreman against the danger.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “ordinary care under the circumstances to have the ship and its equipment in such condition that an expert and experienced stevedore will be able by the exercise of reasonable care to carry on its cargo operations with reasonable safety to persons and property, and to [warn] the stevedore of any hazards on the ship or with respect to its equipment that are known to the vessel or should be known to it in the exercise of reasonable care, that would likely be encountered by the stevedore in the course of his cargo operations and that are not known by the stevedore and would not be obvious to or anticipated by him if reasonably competent in the performance of his work.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““posed only a limited and accepted hazard,” to Stass until he decided to — or, more likely, was ordered to — open grain doors on both sides [of the barge]. As his then-foreman testified, Louisiana Dock policy was always to open doors on only one side of a barge, close them after any inspection ..., and then open the doors on the other side of the barge. Had Louisiana Dock required its own policy to be followed, Stass would not have been injured.”
    3 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.