Guidry v. Durkin’s Empirical Analysis
834 F.2d 1465 · 1987
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2010 · most notably Sisson v. Ruby (1990), Ida Maxwell Wells v. G. Gordon Liddy, Phillip MacKin Bailley, Movant (1999)
21 federal appellate · 6 district · 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. § 1333 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1442 · 28 U.S.C. § 2671 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 5 U.S.C. § 8101 (Attendant Allowance Adjustment Act)
Relies on Carey v. Piphus · East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc. · Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland · Foremost Insurance v. Richardson · Willingham v. Morgan
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) traditional concepts of the role of admiralty law; (2) the function and role of the parties; (3) the types of vehicles and instrumentalities involved; and (4) the causation and nature of the injury suffered.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[ I]n rem actions involving maritime liens fall within the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of the federal district courts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[b]eing precluded from a suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act by its express reservation of sovereign immunity against claims based upon libel, slander, malicious prosecution or false imprisonment, libelant must seek his recovery against the respondent, United States, under the Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C. § 781 et seq. Section 2 of that Act provides that suits under it shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Suits in Admiralty Act. Section 2 of the [SIAA] ( 46 U.S.C. § 742 ) provides for suits against the government as follows: “In cases where if such vessel were privately owned or operated ... a proceeding in admiralty ... may be brought against the United States....””
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.