May v. Transworld Drilling Co.’s Empirical Analysis
786 F.2d 1261 · 1986
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably Richendollar v. Diamond M Drilling Co. (1987), Barker v. Hercules Offshore, Inc. (2013)
14 federal appellate · 2 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1333 · 28 U.S.C. § 1337 · 33 U.S.C. § 905
Relies on Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland · S.S. Zoe Colocotroni v. Puerto Rico · Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos · Foremost Insurance v. Richardson · National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Idaho
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If such person was employed to provide shipbuilding, repairing, or breaking services and such person's employer was the owner, owner pro hac vice, agent, operator, or charterer of the vessel, no such action shall be permitted, in whole or in part or directly or indirectly, against the injured person's employer (in any capacity, including as the vessel's owner, owner pro hac vice, agent, operator, or charterer) or against the employees of the employer.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e here explicitly hold that Sec. 905(b) permits only the assertion of a claim for a maritime tort. Only if a claimant first alleges facts comprising a maritime tort do we need inquire whether he has established the specific elements of a Sec. 905(b) cause of action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“test) and, in addition, that the alleged wrong bear a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity. 8 (footnotes omitted) We conclude that this case does not satisfy the first part of this test and consequently need not consider the second part. 9 In applying the first part of the Executive Jet test, this court must look to”
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.