Legal Opinion

Benson v. Crowell

District Court, S.D. Alabama

Decided February 24, 1930PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ERVIN, District Judge.

After much deliberation I have concluded to amplify the opinion formerly rendered in this ease, 33 F.(2d) 137. I then contented myself with citing the two cases hereafter cited and now feel they should have been commented on.-

In London, etc., Co. v. Industrial Commission of California, 2791 U. S. 109; 49 S. Ct. 296, 300, 73 L. Ed. 632, the court speaking of the jurisdiction of the admiralty court says: “Its jurisdiction is not limited to transr *307portation of goods and passengers from one state to another, or from the United States to a foreign country, but depends upon…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Den Ex Dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1856
  2. Ex Parte Bakelite Corp'n.Supreme Court of the United States · 1929
  3. London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
  4. Benson v. CrowellDistrict Court, S.D. Alabama · 1929

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Kobilkin v. PillsburyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1939
  2. Pueblo De Taos v. ArchuletaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1933
  3. Pittsburgh S. S. Co. v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1948
  4. Pittsburgh S. S. Co. v. BrownDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1947
  5. Houston Ship Channel Stevedoring Co. v. SheppeardDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1931

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API