Legal Opinion
Tempest v. United States
District Court, E.D. Virginia
Decided December 13, 1967No. 8589PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
WALTER E. HOFFMAN, Chief Judge.
The crux of this case is the extent to which Article 25 of the Inland Rules of Navigation, 33 U.S.C. § 210, generally known as the Narrow Channel Rule, 1 is applicable to a given situation. While the Narrow Channel Rule is applicable to the type vessels involved herein, since it specifically refers to “steam vessels”, 33 U.S.C. § 210, and the term “steam vessel” is defined by the Inland Rules of Navigation as “any vessel propelled by machinery”, 33 U.S.C. § 155, it is difficult to interpret the meaning of the term “narrow channel” as applied to the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- The PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Paul v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- United States v. Richard A. Holcombe, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1960
- SKIBS A/S SILJESTAD v. S/S Mathew LuckenbachDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1963
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Canal Barge Co. v. China Ocean Shipping Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1985
- Williamson Leasing Co. v. American Commercial Lines, Inc.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1985
- Canal Barge Company, Inc. v. China Ocean Shipping Co., Etc., Waterman Steamship Corp. v. M/v Elaine Jones, Etc., Canal Barge Company, Inc., Defendant-Third Party v. China Ocean Shipping Co., Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- Maritrans Operating Partners L.P. v. M/T Faith IDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1992
- Meador v. Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services LLCDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2022