Dammers & Vanderheide & Scheepvaart Maats Christina B.V. v. Corona’s Empirical Analysis
836 F.2d 750 · 1988
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 11 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Magnolia Marine Transport Co. v. Laplace Towing Corp. (1992), Port Arthur Towing Co. v. John W. Towing, Inc. (1995)
24 federal appellate · 11 district ·
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. § 2072
Relies on Langnes v. Green · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · American Export Lines, Inc. v. Alvez · Lake Tankers Corp. v. Henn · Ex parte Green
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the district court, sitting in admiralty without a jury, determines 'whether there was negligence; if there was negligence, whether it was without the privity and knowledge of the owner; and if limitation is granted, how the [limitation] fund should be distributed.'”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) “consent to waive any claim of res judicata relevant to the issue of limited liability based on any judgment obtained in the state court”; (2) “concede [the] shipowner’s right to litigate all issues relating to limitation in the-limitation proceeding”; (3) “in the event there is a judgment or recovery in any State Court actions in excess of [the limitation fund,] whether against the [petitioners], or any other liable parties who may cross-claim or claim over against the [petitioners], in no event will claimant[s] ... seek to enforce said excess judgment or recovery insofar as same may expose [petitioners] to liability in excess of [the limitation fund,] pending the adjudication of Limitation of Liability in the District Court”; and (4) “if the [petitioners] are held to be responsible for attorneys!’] fees and costs which may be assessed against them by a co-liable defendant or party seeking indemnification ... for attorney fees and costs then such claims shall have priority over the claim for [claimants].””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.