The Sydfold’s Empirical Analysis
86 F.2d 611 · 1936
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently June 1961 · most notably Redman v. United States (1949), Morales v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. (1953)
16 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
Relies on Hays v. Port of Seattle · Lansdale v. Smith · National Bank v. Carpenter · Chemung Canal Bank v. Lowery · Mack v. Mendels
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The applicability of the two-year statutory bar and laches on the part of libelant was raised by exceptions to the libel. It is argued on appellant’s behalf that the statute of limitations could only be invoked by answer and not on exceptions. But, when a bill in equity or a libel sets forth facts which show that the statute has run, a defendant may take advantage of the statute by demurrer or on exceptions. The same rule applies to bills of complaint or libels where it appears on the face of the pleadings that the party bringing suit has been guilty of laches. Mercantile National Bank v. Carpenter, 101 U.S. 567 , 25 L.Ed. 815 ; Lans-dale v. Smith, 106 U.S. 391 , 1 S.Ct. 350 , 27 L.Ed. 219 ; Chemung Canal Bank v. Lowery, 93 U.S. 72 , 23 L.Ed. 806 ; Hays v. Port of Seattle, 251 U.S. 233 , 238, 40 S.Ct. 125 , 64 L. Ed. 243 ; Young v. Southern Pac. Co., 2 Cir., 34 F.2d 135 , 137; Westfall Larson & Co. v. Allman-Hubble Tug Boat Co., 9 Cir., 73 F.2d 200 ; Stampalia v. Murphy, D.C.Pa., 34 F. 2d 660 , 661.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brown v. Kayler““But the method adopted by the claimant of trying in affidavits the question whether the statute of limitations had run or there was fatal laches on libelant’s part before the suit was brought is quite out of accord with established principles. One of claimant’s assignments of error is directed to this'unusual method of disposing of issues of fact. Such a practice cannot be sanctioned in admiralty where there is no rule resembling that in force in New York (New York Rules of Civil Practice, rule 113), and in some other jurisdictions which authorizes summary judgment.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Walle v. Dallett
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.