Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 75 U.S. 302 - The Carroll

The Carroll’s Empirical Analysis

75 U.S. 302 · 1868

Citation profile

109
cited by 109 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
July 1969
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 51 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 109 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1969 · most notably The Nacoochee (1890), The Elizabeth Jones (1884)

32 federal appellate · 51 district · 3 state decisions

29018681870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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

  1. ““They require, when a steamship and a sailing vessel are approaching from opposite directions, or on intersecting lines, that the steamship, from the moment the sailing vessel is seen, shall with the utmost diligence watch her course and movements, so as to be able to adopt such timely measures of precaution as will necessarily prevent the two boats coming in contact.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““If there was fault on the part of the schooner, the steamer committed a far greater fault in suffering the vessels to get in such dangerous proximity at the moment preceding the collision, and as she has furnished no excuse for this misconduct, is chargeable with all damages resulting from this collision.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The steamer was required to keep out of the way, slack her speed, or, if necessary, stop and reverse, while the schooner was required to maintain her course, and was not justified in changing it unless advised to do so to avoid a danger that immediately threatened her. As the steamer did not keep out of the way, and as the collision did occur, the steamer is prima facie liable, and can only relieve herself by showing that the accident was inevitable, or was caused by the culpable negligence of the schooner*.””
    1 later decision 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.