Legal Opinion
Wemhoener Pressen v. Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided September 13, 1993No. 92-1885PublishedCited by 49 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*736OPINION
BRITT, District Judge:
The issues before the court are whether the district court erred first in finding that federal maritime law applied to appellant Wemhoener Pressen’s claim against appellee Ceres Marine Terminals, and then in deciding that the Himalaya clause in the bill of lading effectively extended to Ceres the $500 limitation of liability available to the carrier under the provisions of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COGSA”), 46 U.S.C.App. § 1304(5). Ceres contends that the district court had federal maritime jurisdiction over all of Wemhoener’s claims, including the claim…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Leather's Best, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. S.S. Mormaclynx, Defendants-Appellants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1971
- Robert C. Herd & Co. v. Krawill MacHinery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Colgate Palmolive Co. v. S/S Dart CanadaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- Boston Metals Co. v. the Winding GulfSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Assicurazioni Generali v. D'Amico and Harrington & Company, Inc., Jointly and SeverallyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1985
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Sompo Japan Insurance Company of America v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Docket No. 04-4066-CvCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
- Farrell Lines Inc. v. Columbus Cello-Poly Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1997
- Metropolitan Wholesale Supply, Inc. v. M/V Royal RainbowCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
- Mannesman Demag Corp. v. M/V Concert ExpressCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2000
- Sabah Shipyard Sdn. Bhd. v. M/V Harbel TapperCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1999
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.