Armada Supply Inc. v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
858 F.2d 842 · 1988
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Johnson & Higgins of Texas, Inc. v. Kenneco Energy, Inc. (1998), Ai Trade Finance Inc v. Petra Bank (1993)
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · McGee v. International Life Insurance
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[cjlearly contracting to insure property located within a jurisdiction, even if the presence of that property is transitory, subjects a foreign marine-insurer to jurisdiction on suits over such insurance. See Puerto Rico v. the SS Zoe Colocotroni, 628 F.2d 652, 667-70 (1st Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 912 , 101 S.Ct. 1350 , 67 L.Ed.2d 336 (1981); American & Foreign Ins. Ass’n v. Commercial Ins. Co., 575 F.2d 980, 982 (1st Cir.1978); Atlantic Lines, Ltd. v. M/VDomburgh, 473 F.Supp. 700, 702-704 (S.D.Fla.1979).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“contracting to insure property located within a jurisdiction, even if the presence of that property is transitory, subjects a foreign marine-insurer to jurisdiction on suits over such insurance”
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.