Stanfield v. Shellmaker, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
869 F.2d 521 · 1989
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 46 U.S.C. § 30101 (Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction Act) · 46 U.S.C. § 30104 (Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (Jones Act))
Relies on Foremost Insurance v. Richardson · Mobil Oil Corporation v. Higginbotham K · Tisdale v. United States · O'Donnell v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. · Swanson v. Marra Bros.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“eas[ing] the requirement that, to be a seaman, the claimant had to be 'assigned permanently to a vessel.' " Stanfield v. Shellmaker, Inc., 869 F.2d 521 , 525 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting Braniff v. Jackson Ave.-Gretna Ferry, Inc., 280 F.2d 523 , 526 (5th Cir.1960)). Under the fleet doctrine, one can acquire "seaman”
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.