Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 995 F.2d 77 - Walker v. Braus

Walker v. Braus’s Empirical Analysis

995 F.2d 77 · 1993

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
2
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Wahlstrom v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. (1993), Moore v. ANGELA MV (2003)

24 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

240199320002010decided

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 Pullman-Standard v. Swint · Miles v. Apex Marine Corp. · McNamara v. County of San Diego Department of Social Services · Oneida Motor Freight, Inc. v. United Jersey · United States v. Singer Manufacturing 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he Supreme Court has clearly indicated its desire to achieve uniformity of damage recoveries in the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction. Allowing Trahan [, widow of the deceased operator,] to recover loss of consortium damages would directly contradict the policy of uniformity emphasized and relied on by the Court in Miles .”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A [factual] finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court based on all of the evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In a time charter the vessel owner [here owner pro hac vice ] retains possession and control of the vessel; provides whatever crew is needed and is responsible for normal operating expenses. Further, in a time charter the owner fully equips and maintains the vessel, makes repairs as needed.”
    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.