892 F. Supp. 60 - Pierpoint v. Barnes’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 2015
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447
Relies on Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. · Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland · Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire · Engel v. Davenport · Bartholet v. REISHAUER A.G.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Since DOHSA merely authorizes an admiralty action, a party proceéding under DOHSA must allege a theory of recovery cognizable by a court sitting in admiralty jurisdiction.” Best v. Honeywell, Inc., 491 F.Supp. 269, 270 (D.Conn.1980). Moreover, no federal court has held that DOHSA or other admiralty laws generate both federal question jurisdiction and admiralty jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“concurrent state jurisdiction over admiralty cases contradicts removability”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pierpoint v. Barnes
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.