Fednav, Ltd. v. Isoramar, S.A.’s Empirical Analysis
925 F.2d 599 · 1991
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 2017
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Verlinden B. v. v. Central Bank of Nigeria · Kossick v. United Fruit Co. · Nebraska v. Wyoming · North Pacific Steamship Co. v. Hall Bros. Marine Railway & Shipbuilding Co. · Ingersoll Milling Machine Co. v. M/V Bodena
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the direct subject-matter of the suit is the covenant to pay such damages, which neither involves maritime services nor maritime transactions; and ... the mere fact that the event and measure of liability are referable to the charter party does not make the [agreement to pay] a maritime contract, nor make its obligation maritime in a jurisdictional sense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“an agreement to pay damages for another's breach of a maritime charter is not [a maritime contract],”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“agreement to contribute to the settlement of [a] charter claim is not a maritime contract,”
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.