Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 781 F.2d 514 - McWilliams v. Texaco, Inc.

McWilliams v. Texaco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

781 F.2d 514 · 1986

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
2
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Morales v. Garijak, Inc. (1987), Barnes v. Andover Co. (1990)

18 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

1501986199020002010decided

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 Vaughan v. Atkinson · Calmar Ss Corporation v. Taylor · Johnson v. United States · Doris R. Edwards, Etc., Cross-Appellant v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, Cross-Appellees · Guidry v. Kem Manufacturing Co.

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

  1. “... There is an ancient duty of a vessel to provide maintenance and cure to a seaman who is injured or falls ill while in the service of the ship_ Maintenance is comparable to the value of food and lodging provided by the vessel_ A seaman’s own testimony as to expenses is competent evidence of the amount of maintenance. ... Since the maintenance payment is for food and lodging similar to that aboard the vessel, the amount may vary depending on what was provided by the ship and the cost of the equivalent shore-side .... Thus it is a question of fact to be decided based upon the evidence presented.... At trial, the only testimony provided by Springborn [the plaintiff] concerning maintenance was Springborn’s statement that he borrowed $200 a week from his attorney. Springborn argues that this is competent evidence and supports the jury’s award.... We conclude that Springborn’s mere assertion that he borrowed $200 a week from his attorney to live on is not enough. The seaman must present some evidence that he expended sums for food and lodging ashore which was equivalent of that on the vessel, [citations omitted].”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “laxness in investigating a claim that would have been found to be meritorious.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “sickness seizes on any one of the mariners, while in the service of the ship, the master ought to set him ashore, to provide lodging and candlelight for him, and also spare him one of the ship-boys, or hire a woman to attend him....”
    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.