Legal Opinion
Close v. Anderson
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided October 11, 1977No. C75-217BPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BEEKS, District Judge:
This is an action for damages suffered by plaintiff (Close) when two reels of armored cable were damaged during transport from Bellingham, Washington to a project on which Close was working in Snettisham, Alaska. The principal issue concerns the condition of the reels upon which the cable was wound at the time it was delivered to Anderson. The issue of damages has been bifurcated.
Close was a subcontractor on the Snettisham hydroelectric project during late 1973 and early 1974. In order to complete the job, it needed a quantity of three conductor armored cable to replace…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Commercial Molasses Corp. v. New York Tank Barge Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Propeller Niagara v. CordesSupreme Court of the United States · 1859
- United States v. Stephen Brothers LineCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1967
- Eastern Motor Express, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee v. A. Maschmeijer, Jr., Inc., Defendant-Appellee-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bernert Towboat Co. v. USS CHANDLER (DDG 996)District Court, D. Oregon · 1987
- ETS Gustave Brunet, S.A. v. M.V. "Nedlloyd Rosario"District Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- Fernales Shipping Company, S.A., Cross-Appellee v. Bonaire Petroleum Corporation, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1984
- Consolidated Grain & Barge Co. v. American Barge and Towing Co.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1991