Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 982 F.2d 765 - Itel Containers International Corp. v. Atlanttrafik Express Service Ltd.

Itel Containers International Corp. v. Atlanttrafik Express Service Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis

982 F.2d 765 · 1992

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
January 2021
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably Silver Star Enterprises, Inc. v. Saramacca MV (1996), Redcliffe Americas Ltd. v. M/V Tyson Lykes (1993)

7 federal appellate · 2 district ·

1701992200020102020decided

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 Carnegie v. United States · Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Pemberton · Brame v. United States · Piedmont & Georges Creek Coal Co. v. Seaboard Fisheries Co. · Dannebrog v. Signal Oil & Gas Co.

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

  1. “A maritime lien is[ ] a special property right in the vessel, arising in favor of the creditor by operation of law as security for a debt or claim. The lien arises when the debt arises, and grants the creditor the right to appropriate the vessel, have it sold, and be repaid the debt from the proceeds.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]t may operate to the prejudice of prior mortgagees or of purchasers without notice. It is therefore stricti juris and will not be extended by construction, analogy or inference.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “does not support a claim of maritime lien by a supplier who furnishes goods in bulk to a fleet owner or charterer, with apportionment among the ships being made at the discretion of the recipient.”
    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.