Legal Opinion
Brusich v. Grace Line, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 6, 1944PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CAFFEY, District Judge.
The plaintiff moves for two things. One is to strike , out the answer. The other is to strike out the third defense (paragraphs 16 to 21) of the answer, referred to in the notice of motion as “the defense of compensation.”
I discover no ground for eliminating the answer in its entirety; nor has any been suggested. The sole matter for discussion, therefore, is the third defense.
The issue turns on Section 33 of the Longshoremen’s and. Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 933. The injury of which the plaintiff complains and which is the basis of the action is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cupo v. Isthmian S. S. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1941
- American Lumbermen's Mut. Casualty Co. v. LoweCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
3Cited by5 opinions
- Grasso v. LorentzenDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1944
- Ricciardi v. American Export Lines, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1945
- Roeben v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1953
- Tartaglio v. Cunard White Star, Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1944
- Tevington v. International Milling Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1945