The China’s Empirical Analysis
74 U.S. 53 · 1868
Citation profile
113 federal appellate · 56 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 325 later decisions (38 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Crowell v. Benson (1932), Huntington v. Attrill (1892)
113 federal appellate · 56 district · 8 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.
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 325 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The statute giving the immunity [to a vessel and her owner] where a licensed pilot is employed, abridges the natural right of the injured party to compensation, and is therefore to be construed strictly. The exemption applies only where the pilot is actually in charge of the vessel, and solely in fault. If there be anything which concurred with the fault of the pilot, in producing the accident, the exemption does not apply, and the vessel, master, and owners are liable. The colliding vessel is in all cases prima facie responsible. The burden of proof-rests upon the party claiming the benefit of the exemption. He must show affirmatively that the pilot was in fault, and that there was no fault on the part of the officers or crew, “which might have been in any degree conducive to the damage’.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The maritime law as to the position and powers of the master, and the responsibility of the vessel, is not derived from the civil law of master and servant, nor from the common law. It had its source in the "commercial usages and jurisprudence of the middle ages. Originally, the primary liability was upon the vessel, and that of the owner was not personal, but merely incidental to his ownership, from which he was discharged either by the loss of the vessel or by abandoning it to the creditors.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“are as much for the benefit of the vessel and cargo as those of the captain and crew. His compensation comes from the same source as theirs. Like them he serves the owner and is paid by the owner.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Richard J. Woods v. Matthew J. Marriett, in Personam Cobalt Pleasure Craft, 21 Foot, Her Engines, Tackle, Gear, Apparel, Furniture and Equipment, in Rem and Seattle Boat Company, Inc., a Washington Corporation, in Personam James Cooch and Barbara Cooch, a Marital Community, in Personam, Richard J. Woods v. Matthew J. Marriett, in Personam Cobalt Pleasure Craft, 21 Foot, Her Engines, Tackle, Gear, Apparel, Furniture and Equipment, in Rem · Evans 92-5300 92-5534 v. United Arab Shipping Company Sag
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.