Roach v. M/V Aqua Grace’s Empirical Analysis
857 F.2d 1575 · 1988
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 2020
4 federal appellate · 1 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 33 U.S.C. § 901 · 33 U.S.C. § 902 · 33 U.S.C. § 904 · 33 U.S.C. § 905 · 33 U.S.C. § 937 · 43 U.S.C. § 1333
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos · Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer · Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Johnson
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“no affirmative act of negligence or acquiescence in the use of the dangerous item occurred.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While this [1984] amendment does not disturb the holding of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., it does indicate a Congressional intent to limit invocation [sic] of the dual capacity doctrine under the Act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“poses a danger to the stevedore and is also aware that the stevedore is acting unreasonably to protect the longshoremen.”
2 later decisions 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.