Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 976 F.2d 821 - Magee v. United States Lines, Inc.

Magee v. United States Lines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

976 F.2d 821 · 1992

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
4
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably Quesinberry v. Life Insurance Co. of North America (1993), Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Empresa Naviera Santa Sa (1995)

12 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions

190199220002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1961 · 46 U.S.C. § 30104 (Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (Jones Act))

Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno · International Ass'n of Machinists v. Duckworth · Briggs v. Pennsylvania Railroad · Nebraska v. Wyoming

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

  1. “We do not approve of the district court's device of creating a make-believe date of entry whose sole purpose was to avoid the clear intent of section 1961 and thus the uniformity the section was intended to create.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “As properly interpreted, section 1961 creates a logical uniformity--prejudgment interest where appropriate is awarded up to the date of judgment; postjudgment interest then takes over.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “... would, under the district court's holding, be entitled to receive double interest from December 23, 1991 [the date of verdict] to January 8, 1992, [the date of judgment].”
    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.