Lewis Charters, Inc. v. Huckins Yacht Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
871 F.2d 1046 · 1989
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Sisson v. Ruby (1990), Sea Vessel Inc M/v Sea Lion v. Reyes (1994)
25 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1333 · 28 U.S.C. § 2107
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland · Swansboro Country, Inc. v. Lumberman's Mortgage Co. · Rice v. Norman Williams Co. · Foremost Insurance v. Richardson
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant’s reliance upon Gibboney v. Wright, 517 F.2d 1054 (5th Cir.1975), is also misplaced ... The principal issue was whether to apply the “somewhat drastic — for the injured claimants — provisions of the Limitation Act” to private owners of pleasure craft. Id. at 1057 . The Court held that the Limitation Act applied. We do not disagree with Gib-boney in that owners of pleasure vessels may limit their liability under the Limitation Act, while we recognize, as did the Gibboney court, that there is little reason for such a rule, (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The liability of the owner of any vessel, whether American or foreign, for any embezzlement, loss, or destruction by any person of any property, goods, or merchandise shipped or put on board of such vessel, or for any loss, damage, or injury by collision ... done, occasioned, or incurred, without the privity or knowledge of such owner or owners, shall not ... exceed the amount or value of the interest of such owner in such vessel, and her freight then pending.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent““Judicial expansion of the Limited Liability Act at this date seems especially inappropriate. Many of the conditions in the shipping industry which induced the 1851 Congress to pass the Act no longer prevail. And later Congresses, when they wished to aid shipping, provided subsidies paid out of the public treasury rather than subsidies paid by the injured persons.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.