Legal Opinion

Houston Casualty Co., et al. v. Ambitious Line SA, et al.

District Court, N.D. California

Decided April 27, 2026No. 1:24-cv-02292Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HOUSTON CASUALTY CO., et al., Case No. 24-cv-02292-AMO 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE TRIAL BRIEFS v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 46, 50, 52 10 AMBITIOUS LINE SA, et al., Defendants. 11 12 13 This is a maritime allision1 case. In anticipation of a bench trial, the Court asked the 14 parties to brief any legal questions that could be decided on the papers prior to trial. Dkt. No. 41. 15 The parties agreed to brief the following issue: “whether the presumption of fault when a vessel 16 collides with a stationary object pursuant to The…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. The OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. The Clarita and the ClaraSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  3. The Granite StateSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
  4. Olney M. Wardell v. Department of Transportation, National Transportation Safety BoardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
  5. Manufacturers Railways Co. v. RIVERWAY HARBORDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API