7 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 34 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State Trading Corporation of India, Ltd. v. Assuranceforeningen Skuld.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State Trading Corporation of India, Ltd. v. Assuranceforeningen Skuld Anchor | green | “a federal court sitting in admiralty must apply federal choice of law rules.” | 10 |
| 2 | Williamson v. Recovery Ltd. Partnership | green | “once a contract has been deemed a maritime contract, the next step is determining whether a specific state's laws should be used to supplement any area of contract law for which federal common law does not provide.” | 5 |
| 3 | Williamson v. Recovery Ltd. Partnership | green | “the fact that a choice-of-laws provision exists in a contract does not, by itself, remove the contract from the scope of maritime law.” | 4 |
| 4 | Greg Hargus v. Ferocious and Impetuous | green | “the fundamental interest giving rise to maritime jurisdiction is the protection of maritime commerce.” | 4 |
| 5 | Andreu v. Palmas Del Mar Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. | green | “a continued highway over which commerce is or may be carried on with other states or foreign countries in the customary modes in which such commerce is conducted by water.” | 4 |
| 6 | Andreu v. Palmas Del Mar Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. | green | “the general character of the activity giving rise to the incident shows a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.” | 4 |
| 7 | Andreu v. Palmas Del Mar Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. | green | “for a federal court to have admiralty jurisdiction over a tort claim, the tort must (1) occur on navigable waters and (2) bear some relationship to traditional maritime activity.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.