Flores v. American Seafoods Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
GOULD, Circuit Judge.
In this case we must clarify the requirements of a federal maritime statute whose origins date back to the late eighteenth century. When enacted in 1792, the requirement that a fishing agreement must be “in writing” applied only to seamen fishing for cod. Congress has gradually broadened the scope of this requirement, and it no longer includes any limitation based on the kind of fish that the seamen catch. When the events occurred that gave rise to-this litigation, the applicable statute, 46 U.S.C. § 10601(a) (2000), provided simply that a “fishing agreement” must be “in…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Atkins v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Lauritzen v. LarsenSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Chandris, Inc. v. LatsisSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n v. PattersonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Whitney v. WymanSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Doyle v. Huntress, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2005
- Pnc Bank v. Richard SterbaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- GREAT LAKES REINSURANCE (UK), PLC v. RosinDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2010
- Doyle v. Huntress, Inc.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 2004
- CMA-CGM (America), Inc. v. Empire Truck Lines, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2013
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.