Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 95 U.S. 600 - The "Wanata"

The "Wanata"’s Empirical Analysis

95 U.S. 600 · 1877

Citation profile

106
cited by 106 later decisions
20
cited 20 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
December 2003
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 30 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 106 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2003 · most notably Continental Grain Company v. The Fbl-585 (1960), The Oregon (1895)

34 federal appellate · 30 district · 5 state decisions

28018771880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Palmyra · The Steamer Webb · Propeller Niagara v. Cordes · Manro v. Joseph Almeida

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

  1. ““Due objection to a decree settled in that form was made in that case; but Lord Stowell held that the allowances were correct, that the cost to which the party is put to recover his just damages is a part of his loss, and that the costs in such a case are properly added to the damages in the computation of interest. Objection was also made in that case to the allowance of interest, as the damages were equal to the value of the ship; but the same learned judge answered that the sufferer is entitled to such costs, as he shall incur in recovering the value of the ship, and to interest if payment is delayed — meaning, of course, that the party causing the delay is liable in such a case; and he added that the suffering party is entitled to remuneration for the costs to which he is driven for recovering his loss, as the costs constitute a part of the same; that the act of Parliament is not guilty of the injustice which would ensue if it excluded the costs, which are necessary for replacing the sufferer in a. just state of compensation. Such a party, if he is reinstated in the value of-the property without litigation, is not entitled to costs; but if he cannot obtain the benefit of the regulation in respect to compensation without being driven to the necessity of a suit, the statute would be chargeable with great injustice if it did not allow him to recover costs; and these remarks apply with equal force to the charge of intervening interest arising from delay occasioned by such lit”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Where the claimant appeals from the decree of the District Court, the bond and other stipulations follow the cause into the Circuit Court, and upon the affirmation of the decree the fruits of the appeal bond and other stipulations may be obtained in the same manner as in the court below, they being in fact nothing more than a security taken to enforce the original decree and are in the nature of a stipulation in admiralty.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Interest is not costs in any sense, and, when allowed, it should be decreed as damages,- and be added to the damages awarded in. the District Court.”
    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.