Steamboat Company v. Chase’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 federal appellate · 31 district · 37 state decisions

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

1. “"Exemiiu'd carefully, it is evident tliat Congress intended by that provision to -allow the party to seek redress in the admiralty if he saw fit to do so, but hoc to make it compulsory in any case where the common law is competent to sive him a remedy. Properly construed, a party under that provision may in real in the admiralty, if a maritime lien arises, or he may bring a suit in personam in the same jurisdiction, or he may elect not to go into admiralty at all, and may resort to his common-law remedy in the state courts, or in the Circuit Courts of the United States if he can make proper parties ro give the Circuit Court jurisdiction of his case.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Schuede v. Zenith S. S. Co. · Swayne & Hoyt, Inc. v. Barsch

2. ““Difficulties, it must be conceded, will attend the solution ot the question, but it is not necessary to decide it in the present case, as the jurisdiction of the state court may be supported, whether such a suit may or may not be maintained in the admiralty courts. Sufficient has already been remarked to show that the state courts have jurisdiction if the admiralty courts have no jurisdiction, and a few observations will serve to show that the jurisdiction of the state courts is equally undeniable if it is determined that the case is within the jurisdiction of the admiralty courts. Much discussion of that topic cannot be necessary, as several decisions of this court have established that rule as applicable in all cases where the action in the state court is in form a common-law action against the person, without any of the ingredients of a proceeding in rem to enforce a maritime lien. Where the suit is in rem against the thing, the original jurisdiction is exclusive in the District Courts, as provided in the ninth section of the Judiciary Act; but when the suit is in personam against the owner, the party seeking redress may proceed by libel in the District Court, or he may, at his election, proceed in an action at law, either in the Circuit Court if he and the defendant are citizens of different states, or in a state court as in other eases of actions cognizable in the state and federal courts exercising jurisdiction in common-law cases, as provided in the eleventh section o”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Demer v. Pacific S. S. Co. · 120 F. Supp. 304 - Paduano v. Yamashita Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha

3. ““The ‘saving to suitors’ clause in said sections 41(3) and 371(3) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was changed by substituting the words ‘any other remedy to which he is otherwise entitled’ for the words ‘the right of a common-law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.’ The substituted language is simpler and more expressive of the original intent of Congress and is in conformity with rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolishing the distinction between law and equity.” H. Rep.No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. A118.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jordine v. Walling · 120 F. Supp. 304 - Paduano v. Yamashita Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha