Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 70 U.S. 164 - The Louisiana

The Louisiana’s Empirical Analysis

70 U.S. 164 · 1865

Citation profile

317
cited by 317 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
May 2015
most recently cited

111 federal appellate · 54 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 317 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2015 · most notably Zubik v. Zubik (1967), American Mail Line, Ltd. v. Skagit River Navigation & Trading Co. (1937)

111 federal appellate · 54 district · 3 state decisions

7101865187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. “The collision being caused by the Louisiana drifting from her moorings, she must be liable for the damages consequent thereon, unless she can show affirmatively that the drifting was the result of inevitable accident, or a vis major, which human skill and precaution, and a proper display of nautical skill could not have prevented.”
    17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Tlie collision being caused by the Louisiana drifting from her moorings, she must be liable for the damages consequent thereon, unless she can show affirmatively that the drifting was the result of inevitable accident, or a vis major, which lmman skill and precaution, and a proper display of nautical skill could not have prevented.” “The fact that the steamer was ordered by the government officers to take in coal at the old wharf, which had a narrow front when compared with the great length of the vessel, could not relieve the officers of the lioat from the duty of securing her in such a manner as to prevent her drifting when the change of the tide and winds changed the direction of the forces acting upon the vessel. And the fact that under these circumstances she did drift, is conclusive evidence that she was not sufficiently and properly secured.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “inevitable accident, or a vis major, which human skill and precaution ... could not have prevented.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.