The Lottawanna’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

182 federal appellate · 183 district · 70 state decisions

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

1. “[T]he grant presupposed a `general system of maritime law' which was familiar to the lawyers and statesmen of the country, and contemplated a body of law with uniform operation.”

   44 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix Insurance · The Osceola

2. ““It seems to be settled in our jurisprudence that so long as congress does not interpose to regulate the subject, the rights of material-men, furnishing necessaries to a vessel in her home port, may be regulated in each state by state legislation. State laws, it is true, cannot exclude the contract for furnishing such necessaries from the domain of admiralty jurisdiction, for it is a maritime contract, and they cannot alter the limits of that jurisdiction; nor can they confer it upon the state courts, so as to enable them to proceed in rem for the enforcement of liens created by such state laws, for it is exclusively conferred upon the district courts of the United States. They can only authorize the enforcement thereof by common-law remedies, or such remedies as are equivalent thereto. But the district courts of the United States, having jurisdiction of the contract as a maritime one, may enforce liens given for its security, even when created by state laws. * * * It is true that the ineonvenieneies arising from the often intricate and conflicting state laws creating such liens, induced this court, in the December term, 1858, to abrogate that portion of the twelfth admiralty rule of 1844 which allowed proceedings in rem against domestic ships for repairs and supplies furnished in the home port, and to allow proceedings in personam only in such cases. J3ut we have now restored the rule of 1844, or, rather, we have made it general in its terms, giving to material-men in all ca”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The J. E. Rumbell · The Glide

3. ““The court [the proceeding was in admiralty] has power to distribute surplus proceeds to all those who can show a vested interest therein, in the order of their several priorities, no matter how their claims originated. The propriety of such a distribution in the admiralty has been questioned on the ground that the court would thereby draw to itself equity jurisdiction. But it is a wholesome jurisdiction, very commonly exercised by nearly all superior •courts, to distribute a fund rightfully in its possession to those who are legally entitled to it; and there is no sound reason why admiralty courts should not do the same. If a case should be so complicated as to require the interposition of a court of equity, the District Court could refuse to act, and refer the parties to a more competent tribunal.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gray v. Proceeds of the Advance · In re Forsyth