Thibodeaux v. Torch, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
858 F.2d 1048 · 1988
Citation profile
12 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently May 2000
12 federal appellate ·
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. § 902 · 33 U.S.C. § 905 · 46 U.S.C. § 30104 (Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (Jones Act))
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Martin Exploration Management Co. · Offshore Company and the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, Appellants v. Johnie M. Robison, Appellee-Appellant. Robison v. Offshore Company and the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York · Jethro Barrett v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., E.B.B. Co., Inc. And Lift Barge, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Company, Intervenor-Appellant · Nationwide Corp. v. Howing Co.
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he activity of a plaintiff seeking damages under the Jones Act at the time of his injury is only one factor in the Pizzi-tolo analysis of whether or not that individual is engaged in an occupation covered by the LHWCA and thus ineligible for Jones Act coverage ... Thibodeaux also maintains that he spent approximately ninety percent of his employment time with Toich on board the [crane barge] ... Indeed, Torch does not dispute that Thibodeaux’s job title for purposes of receiving compensation was a crane operator. ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]lthough we have on occasion analyzed the question of whether an employee engaged in longshoring or ship repairing was a member of the crew of a vessel under the Robison test, we are persuaded that such an analysis is unnecessary if the employee is engaged in an occupation expressly enumerated in the (LHWCA).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Following the Pizzitolo analysis, the traditional tests for seaman status become 'unnecessary' only when the 'employee is engaged in an occupation expressly enumerated in the [Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation] Act.’”
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.