Legal Opinion
Cary Marine, Inc. v. The Motor Vessel Papillon
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided May 24, 1988No. C87-2905PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
BATTISTI, Chief Judge.
The plaintiff seeks an order for the arrest of the motor vessel Papillon under either Rule C or Rule D of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Supplemental Admiralty Rules. As is detailed below, because the plaintiff does not have legal title a Rule D arrest is not appropriate, because there was no breach of a maritime contract a Rule C arrest is not appropriate, and because there is no danger of the Papillon being spirited out of this Court’s jurisdiction there is no theoretical justification for arresting the yacht. The verified complaint and the authority cited…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- S. C. Loveland, Inc. v. East West Towing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979
- Stathos v. MaroDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1955
3Cited by4 opinions
- Cary Marine, Inc. v. The Motorvessel Papillon, Great Lakes Cary Corporation, Donald B. McCann and Third Party Randy Postma, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
- GULF COAST SHELL AND AGGREGATE LP v. NewlinCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2010
- Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator, AK Registration No. AK3565ANDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 2023
- Opaskar v. 33' 1987 Chris-Craft Amerosport Motor VesselDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2023