Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 85 F.3d 105 - Complaint of Nautilus Motor Tanker Co Ltd M/t Bt Nautilus

Complaint of Nautilus Motor Tanker Co Ltd M/t Bt Nautilus’s Empirical Analysis

85 F.3d 105 · 1996

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
June 2024
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Wills v. Amerada Hess Corp. (2004), Reynolds v. Wagner (1997)

20 federal appellate · 2 district ·

1801996200020102020decided

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 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · The Pennsylvania · Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey · The Oregon

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

  1. “But when ... a ship at the time of collision is in actual violation of a statutory rule intended to prevent collisions, it is no more than a reasonable presumption that the fault, if not the sole cause, was at least a contributory cause of the disaster. In such a case the burden rests upon the ship of showing not merely that her fault might not have been one of the causes, or that it probably was not, but that it could not have been. Such a rule is necessary to enforce obedience to the mandate of the statute.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to an authority granted by law, unless the sources of the information or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.” The fact that these statements were iterated in support of the investigator's conclusion that Russell (among others) "failed to take proper and decisive action,” place them under the rubric of "factual findings”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of this section, the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from: (3) Interlocutory decrees of such district courts or the judges thereof determining the rights and liabilities of the parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed.”
    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.