Citrus Marketing Board of Israel v. J. Lauritzen A/S’s Empirical Analysis
943 F.2d 220 · 1991
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Leon v. Murphy (1993), Richardson v. Selsky (1993)
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc · Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd · Landis v. North American Co. · Hayes v. Lockhart
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Act is clearly phrased. It defines the term “carrier” to include “the owner or the charterer who enters into a contract of carriage with the shipper.” It imposes particularized duties and obligations upon, and grants stated immunities to, the “carrier.” Respecting limitation of the amount of liability for loss of or damage to goods, it says that “neither the carrier nor the ship” shall be liable for more than $500 per package. It makes no reference whatever to stevedores or agents.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e may affirm on any basis for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law, including grounds upon which the district court did not rely . . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration, the court in which such suit is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.