Harrison v. Glendel Drilling Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2014
6 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 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger · Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland · Foremost Insurance v. Richardson · Wolff v. McDonnell
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The activity involved in [the malpractice] claims — a seaman receiving medical treatment from a private land-based physician — is not ... a form of maritime activity. The treating physician is not a ship’s doctor. The function and roles of the parties are those of any land-based doctor patient relationship. Certainly a land-based physician does not engage in maritime business simply because during the course of his regular practice he treats a patient who happens to be an off-duty seaman.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An allegation that the claim is within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction does not automatically make it an admiralty and maritime claim, within the meaning of Rule 9(h), if the claim is also within the jurisdiction of the district court on some other ground. A statement identifying the pleading as an admiralty and maritime claim is necessary, (emphasis in text).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Harrison court went on explaining: [I]t is nationally recognized that the standards of medical malpractice are a matter of local and state concern. We can find absolutely no support for the proposition that an ordinary, private on-shore physician who treats an injured sailor has thereby submitted himself to the rules of maritime commerce. Rather, it has been consistently held that it is state law which controls in cases such as this. ****** In the situation before us, which is only fortuitously and incidentally connected to navigable waters, and which bears no relationship to traditional maritime activity, the [state] courts could plainly exercise jurisdiction over the suit, and could plainly apply familiar concepts of [state] tort law without any effect on maritime endeavors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Masherah v. Dettloff
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.