Legal Opinion
Loverich v. Warner Co.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided March 17, 1941No. 7517, 7559PublishedCited by 104 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*692GOODRICH, Circuit Judge.
This is an action in admiralty to recover upon the obligation for maintenance and cure.1 Each side has appealed; the libellant claims that the award was too limited; the respondent claims that no award at all should have been made.
The libellant, Frank B. Loverich, was in the employ of the respondent in 1925 and was the sole employee upon respondent’s oil barge called “01”. According to his testimony he began to suffer hoarseness following a fire on the barge in 1926, during the extinguishment 'of which he was exposed to smoke and weather. The condition of his throat…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Calmar Steamship Corp. v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
- South Chicago Coal & Dock Co. v. BassettSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- United States v. Alex Dussel Iron Works, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1929
- Calmar SS Corporation v. TaylorCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1937
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by104 opinions
- Norton v. Warner Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Jones v. Waterman SS CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1946
- Bordes v. Commissioner of Social SecurityCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
- Michael J. Burke v. Gateway Clipper, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1971
- Jose Guerrido, Libellant v. Alcoa Steamship Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1956
99 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.