Simon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 8 district ·

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

1. “MTC’s insurance against liability under the LHWCA does not differ significantly from insurance or other risk allocating systems in which numerous land-based employers participate to cover their liability under state worker’s compensation statutes. Furthermore, MTC’s insurance bears no relationship to any particular vessel. The insurance is only indirectly connected with maritime commerce because of the relationship between MTC’s potential compensation liability and its performance of stevedoring contracts. Such a relationship is far too tenuous to justify classifying the insurance for compensation liability as a maritime obligation or interest sufficient to bring the policies and their related servicing agreements within the pale of admiralty jurisdiction.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. No. 05-35323 · St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. v. Corn Island Shipyard, Inc.

2. “[W]e review de novo whether [defendant's] offer of judgment, [plaintiff's] rejection of the offer, and the judgment following the trial satisfied the requirements of Rule 68.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. John S. Herrington David S. Herrington Quail Hill Ranch v. County of Sonoma, John S. Herrington David S. Herrington, and Quail Hill Ranch Co., a Partnership v. County of Sonoma, John S. Herrington David S. Herrington Quail Hill Ranch v. County of Sonoma · Herrington

3. “Rule 68 says, in relevant part: At any time more than 10 days before the trial begins, a party defending against a claim may serve upon the adverse party an offer to allow judgment to be taken against the defending party for the money or property or to the effect specified in the offer, with costs then accrued.'... If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer.... When the liability of one party to another has been determined by verdict or order or judgment, but the amount or extent of the liability remains to be determined by further proceedings, the party adjudged liable may make an offer of judgment, which shall have the same effect as an offer made before trial if it is served within a reasonable time not less than 10 days prior to the commencement of hearings to determine the amount or extent of liability.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Herrington v. County of Sonoma