Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 U.S. 624 - The Belfast

The Belfast’s Empirical Analysis

74 U.S. 624 · 1868

Citation profile

246
cited by 246 later decisions
61
cited 61 times by the Supreme Court
18
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 48 district · 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 246 later decisions (61 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Crowell v. Benson (1932), Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. (1959)

34 federal appellate · 48 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 18 states

36018681870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

Relies on 4885 Bags of Linseed · The United States v. The Schooner Betsey and Charlotte, and Her Cargo

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

  1. “all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Questions of the kind (such as we have before us here) cannot arise in suits in rem to enforce maritime liens, as the common law is not competent to give such a remedy, and the jurisdiction of the admiralty courts in such cases is exclusive. Such a question can only arise in personal suits, where the remedy, in the two jurisdictions, is without 'am/g substantial difference. Examined carefully, it is evident that Congress intended by that provision to allow the party to seek redress in the admiralty if he saw fit to do so, but not to make it compulsory in any case where the common law is competent to give him a remedy. Properly construed, a party under that provision may proceed in rem in the admiralty if a maritime lion arises, or he may bring a suit in personam in the same jurisdiction or he may elect not to go into admiralty at ail, and may resort to his common-law remedy in the state courts, or in the Circuit Courts of the United States if he can make proper parties to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction of his case.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “■‘Difficulties attend every attempt to define the exact limits of admiralty jurisdiction, but it cannot be made to depend upon the power of Congress to regulate commerce, as conferred in the Constitution. They are entirely distinct things, having no necessary connection with one another, and are conferred, in the Constitution, by separate and distinct grants. * * * Congress may regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, but the judicial power, which, among other things, extends to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, was conferred upon the federal government by the Constitution, and Congress cannot enlarge it, not even to suit the wants of commerce, nor for the more convenient execution of its commercial regulations.””
    2 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.