Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 867 F.2d 341 - Sisson the Ultorian

Sisson the Ultorian’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
November 2012
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently November 2012

1 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

1701989199020002010decided

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 Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland · National Farmers Union Insurance v. Crow Tribe of Indians · Foremost Insurance v. Richardson · Atlantic Transport Company of West Virginia v. Frank Imbrovek · The Plymouth

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

  1. “Thus there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the Foremost Court [Supreme Court decision] intended to limit admiralty jurisdiction in non-commercial maritime tort cases to torts involving navigation. In our view, a persuasive interpretation of Foremost would confine the admiralty jurisdiction in tort cases either to cases directly involving commercial maritime activity, or to cases involving exclusively non-commercial activities in which the wrong (1) has a potentially “disruptive impact” on maritime commerce and (2) involves the “traditional maritime activity” of navigation. In cases where if such vessel were privately owned or operated, or if such cargo were privately owned or possessed, or if a private person or property were involved, a proceeding in admiralty could be maintained, any appropriate nonjury proceeding in personam may be brought against the United States....”
    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.