Rice v. Harken Exploration Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 33 U.S.C. § 1311 · 33 U.S.C. § 1362 · 33 U.S.C. § 2701 (Delaware River Protection Act of 2006) · 33 U.S.C. § 2702 · 33 U.S.C. § 2713
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Cities of Charlottesville v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. · United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. · Japan Whaling Ass'n v. American Cetacean Society · The Daniel Ball
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“SEC. 6001. SAVINGS CLAUSE The Senate amendment has no savings provision regarding admiralty and maritime laws or jurisdiction. Section 6001 of the House bill clarifies that the House bill does not affect admiralty and maritime law or the jurisdiction of the District Courts of the United States with respect to civil actions under admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled. Article III, clause 2, of the Constitution creates the basis for admiralty and maritime law of the United States. This section is intended to clarify that the House bill does not supersede that law, nor does it change the jurisdiction of the District Courts under section 1333 of title 28, United States Code (the codified section of the Judiciary Act of 1789). The Conference substitute also adds certain other boilerplate savings provisions, including those regarding repealed laws and legislative construction. The Conference substitute adopts the House provision with respect to admiralty and maritime laws with an amendment clarifying that the provision was subject to the provisions of the substitute. Section 1002 of the Conference substitute establishes liability notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law, including the Act of March 3, 1851 (46 U.S.C. 183). Therefore, there is no change in current law unless there is a specific provision to the contrary. It is not the intent of the Conferees to change the jurisdiction in incid”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Panhandle of Texas is hundreds of miles from costal waters or ocean beaches. Discharges of oil and salt water onto land in the Panhandle of Texas are not the type of oil and waste-water spills targeted by the OPA. ...Plaintiffs have no Oil Pollution Act cause of action under the facts of this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“required large taxpayer subsidies for costly cleanup activities, allowed third-party damages to go uncompensated, and presented substantial barriers to victims' recoveries,”
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.