Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 928 F.2d 627 - Matute v. Procoast Navigation Ltd.

Matute v. Procoast Navigation Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis

928 F.2d 627 · 1991

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Beverly Hills Fan Company v. Royal Sovereign Corp. And Ultec Enterprises Co., Ltd. (1994), In re TMI Litigation (1999)

15 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

210199120002010decided

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 46 U.S.C. § 30104 (Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (Jones Act))

Relies on United States v. Robinson · Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. · Lauritzen v. Larsen · Batson v. Kentucky · Hellenic Lines Limited v. Rhoditis

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

  1. “[I]n the absence of a showing of prejudice by [defendant], it appears that [plaintiff]'s mistake in failing to state specifically that he was appealing from the underlying dismissal should be viewed as harmless error and not a jurisdictional bar to his appeal. Indeed, [plaintiff] did mention the Order of Dismissal in his notice of appeal; the intent to appeal from that Order, thus, can be inferred fairly from the notice.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “can exercise jurisdiction over orders not specified in the Notice of Appeal if: (1) there is a connection between the specified and unspecified orders; (2) the intention to appeal the unspecified order is apparent; and (3) the opposing party is not prejudiced and has a full opportunity to brief the issues.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “as long as intent to appeal from a specific judgment can be fairly inferred from notice and the appellee is not misled by the mistake,”
    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.