← 817 F.2d 242 - Marek v. Marpan Two, Inc.

Marek v. Marpan Two, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

817 F.2d 242 · 1987

Citation profile

cited by 81 later decisions

states following

May 2016

most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 17 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Jackson v. University of Pittsburgh (1987), Alberta Gas Chemicals Limited v. Ei Du Pont De Nemours and Company (1987)

27 federal appellate · 17 district · 13 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

Relies on Bates v. State Bar · Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co. · The Majestic · Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, S. P. A. v. Lisi · Murrary v. . Cunard Steamship 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“often found on the front cover of a cruise ticket, directing a passenger to read the particular terms inside the ticket. The other focal point is the ticket terms themselves, and concerns such physical characteristics as the location of the terms within the ticket, the size of the terms within the ticket, the size of the typeface in which they are printed, and the simplicity of the language they employ. 7 Id. at 245. The court then had to determine”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Hodes v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro ed Altri-Gestione · 677 F. Supp. 269 - Everett v. Carnival Cruise Lines
“"Thus, even though the courts continue to use the ‘all it reasonably could’ language, application of the standard involves notions of reasonableness and not hypothesizing some further step the shipowner could possibly have taken.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Mary Lousararian v. Royal Caribbean Corp., as Successor in Interest to Royal Caribbean Limited · 753 F. Supp. 1490 - Coleman v. Norwegian Cruise Lines
“'[t]he passenger who omits to read takes the risk of the omission'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Samantha C. Petrey v. The Cunard Line, Limited · 625 So. 2d 1308 - Collins v. Dolphin Cruise Line, Inc.

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.