Oregon Imp. Co. v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 7 district ·

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

1. ““The question presented in the second assignment o£ error- that is, the power ol a court oí admiralty to entertain jurisdiction of suit by the representativos of a deceased person when the right of action survives by the Ureal law—lias not been passed on definitely by the Supreme Court, though it has come up incidentally in several eases. Whenever it has arisen in the District Court, with but few exceptions, the jurisdiction has been,entertained, and by a few eminent judges it has been, asserted without the aid of local iaw. The reasoning of the latter lias been left unsubstantial by the decision of the Supremo Court in Insurance Co. v. Brame, 95 U. S. 754 [ 24 L. Ed. 580 ], nut it shows the disposition of judges. The research of other courts lias made it tinnowsrary to review or especially cite these cases. This has been ablv and accurately done in Steamboat Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall. 552 [ 21 L. Ed. 369 ]; The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199 [ 7 Sup. Ct. 140 , 30 L. Ed. 358 ]; Ex parte Gordon, 101 U. S. 515 [ 26 L. Ed. 814 ]; The Corsair, 145 U. S. 335 , 12 Sup. Ct. 949 [ 30 L. Ed. 727 ]; and no disapproval is expressed of the cases reviewed. It may not be unnecessary repetition to refer to the case of The City of Norwalk [D. C.] 55 Fed. 98 , in which Judge Brown, of the Southern district of New York, comments on previous decisions, and vindicates the jurisdiction of the District Court with great strength of reasoning; and the cases of Helmes v. Hallway Co. [D. C.] 5 Fed. 75 , and Th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Alaska

2. ““When Hie dentil o£ a person Is caused by the wrongful act or omission of another, the personal representatives of the former may maintain an action a. law therefor against the latter, if the former might, have maintained an action, luid he lived, ngainst the latter, for an injury done by the same act or omission. Such action shall be commenced within two years after the death.” Hill’s Ann. Code, § 37i. "ifvery boat or vessel used In navigating the waters of this state * * * shall be liable and subject to a lien * * * for all * * damages or injuries done to persons or property by such boat or vessel.” Id. § dG90.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Laidlaw v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co.