Case Citator › Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, Inc.

Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, Inc.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Declined by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
287 U.S. 367
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
54 of 54
Citing cases (total)
54
Treatment dates
1972–1989
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, Inc. has been declined in part. The Fourth and First Circuits declined to follow its statement that maritime tort claims do not survive death.
More on how this was screened

The First Circuit later confined its statement about agreements affecting maintenance and cure when a collective bargaining agreement set the payment rate. All 54 flagged citations have been read; the 3 confirmed treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

54 later cases cite Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, Inc.; 54 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, Inc.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Declined to follow

  • The Fourth Circuit declined to follow Cortes's dictum against recovery for a deceased seaman's predeath pain and suffering in a general maritime action.

    Greene v. Vantage Steamship Corp. · Fourth Circuit · filed

    Traditionally, however, recovery has been denied where the seaman dies of his injuries. Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, 287 U.S. 367, 371, 53 S.Ct. 173, 77 L.Ed. 368 (1932) (dictum). ... In light of the Court’s holding and discussion in Moragne, we do not believe that the dictum in Cortes is still controlling.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The First Circuit rejected Cortes's dictum against survival of maritime tort claims and recognized a claim for predeath pain and suffering.

    Barbe v. Drummond · First Circuit · filed

    ... the dictum in Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, Inc., 287 U.S. 367, 53 S.Ct. 173, 77 L.Ed. 368 (1932), that the maritime law does not provide for survival of personal rights of action in tort is no longer good law after Moragne.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The First Circuit treated Cortes's no-agreement statement as dictum and enforced a maintenance rate set by collective bargaining.

    Macedo v. F/V Paul & Michelle · First Circuit · filed

    ... the Court repeated a dictum from Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, ... that while maintenance and cure “has its source in a relation which is contractual in origin ... no agreement is competent to abrogate the incident.” Vaughan’s statement also was dictum — in neither case had there been a waiver agreement. ... Collective bargaining agreements — highly approved generally — present a quite different question. ... We hold this acceptable.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace