Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 91 F.1d 547 - The Ohio

The Ohio’s Empirical Analysis

91 F. 547 · 1898

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
July 1969
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 8 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 1969 · most notably Seaboard Airline R. Co. v. Pan American Petroleum & Transport Co. (1952), Union Oil Co. of California v. The Tug Mary Malloy (1969)

14 federal appellate · 8 district ·

10018981900191019201930194019501960decided

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

Relies on The Oregon · Alexandre v. MacHan · The Umbria · Hall Long v. The Railroad Companies · The Elizabeth Jones

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

  1. ““But the Siberia does not exonerate herself from liability to the Ohio by simply showing that she thus came within the influence of the ‘suction’ of a passing steamer. The Ohio has the right to call upon her to show that she was brought within this dangerous influence without fault, and that there was no fault in her management after this mysterious force began to exert itself upon her. Unless she can show that her deviation was due to a cause which she could not have reasonably avoided, how can it be said that the collision was inevitable,—that it was not occasioned in any degree by the want of such care and shill as the law requires and holds all men bound to exercise?””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““If this swing from her course was caused wholly by the wrongful approach of the Mather, and could not have been prevented or broten before the collision, by the use of all the means which were reasonably within the control of those charged with her navigation, she must be acquitted; for the cause of the collision would be a cause not produced by her. But the burden is upon her to show, not only that her sheer was caused by the wrongful conduct of the Mather, but that her own management was such, both before and after the sheer, as not to have contributed to the final collision.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The rule is well settled that when one vessel by her own wrongful maneuver places another in a situation of immediate peril, and the latter does not act with that promptness and accuracy [of judgment which might be expected] when there was complete presence of mind, and happens to delay or do something, which turns out to have been a mistake, she will not thereby become such a contributor to the mischief as to render her liable for damages. * * *”
    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.