Melinda A. Davis v. Cargill, Inc., Cargo Carriers, Inc., and Vessel "A" in Rem’s Empirical Analysis
808 F.2d 361 · 1986
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2005
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 33 U.S.C. § 905
Relies on Cataldo v. United States · Tobacco Institute, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission · Fuentes v. Shevin · Cope v. Vallette Dry Dock Co. · Joe Keller v. Dravo Corporation
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In reaching this conclusion we stated: Although the plaintiff was injured while on a work platform and not a dry dock, the similarities between the two compel our holding that this platform, like a moored dry dock used for that purpose, is not a vessel within the meaning of § 905(b). According to the affidavits submitted to the district court by the defendants, the platform was originally a navigable surplus dry cargo barge. It has since been converted for use as a permanently moored platform from which painting and sandblasting services are provided to barges and is no longer designed or used for navigation. The platform is anchored to the riverbed, and is moved only once or twice a year to compensate for tide changes, and even then, ... cannot be moved without the assistance of motorized vessels. The district court therefore properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the ground that the work platform on which the plaintiff was injured was not a ‘vessel’ within the meaning of § 905(b).” Id. at 362 . (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“floated on the water but was anchored to the riverbed and equipped with a permanently attached landing extension. Other modifications had also been made, including the cutting of a door into the hull and installation of sandtanks and air compressors in the hull. The platform is moved only to accommodate the changing tide of the river.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“as a matter of law, a floating dry dock is not a vessel when it is moored and in use as a dry dock,”
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.