Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 985 F.2d 808 - Williams v. M/V SONORA

Williams v. M/V SONORA’s Empirical Analysis

985 F.2d 808 · 1993

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
January 2024
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably New Rock Asset Partners, L.P. v. Preferred Entity Advancements, Inc. (1996), Tennessee Gas Pipeline v. Houston Casualty Insurance (1996)

13 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

2101993200020102020decided

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 United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Rosado v. Wyman · Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos · Scherl v. Fisher · McNamara v. County of San Diego Department of Social Services

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

  1. “Scindia, therefore, requires the existence of two basic conditions for the imposition of the shipowner’s duty to intervene—the shipowner’s actual knowledge of a danger to a longshoreman, and the shipowner’s knowledge that the longshoreman’s employer is not acting reasonably to protect its employees from that danger. The Futo 3 court outlined considerations that pertain to the existence of these basic conditions: whether the danger was open and obvious; whether the danger was located within the ship or ship’s gear; which party created the danger or used the defective item and was therefore in a better position to correct it; which party owned and controlled the defective item; whether an affirmative act of negligence or acquiescence in the use of the dangerous item occurred; and whether the shipowner assumed any duty with regard to the dangerous item.”
    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.