Legal Opinion
Armit v. Loveland
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided February 5, 1941No. 65PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WELSH, District Judge.
The trial of the present suit for maintenance and cure followed a previous trial under the Jones Act, Merchant Marine Act of 1920, Section 33, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, in which the same libellant recovered a verdict of $10,000 indemnity for an injury suffered in the course of his employment. Civil Action No. 269. The facts upon which the claim is based are established by the evidence of injury given in the previous trial, and subsequent testimony as to the seaman’s maintenance. From such evidence we make the following findings:
The libellant was employed by S. C. Loveland &…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- The OsceolaSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Calmar Steamship Corp. v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Pacific Steamship Co. v. PetersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- The Bouker No. 2Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Aston Bartholomew v. Universe Tankships, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1960
- United States v. LoyolaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1947
- Brahms v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1955
- Muise v. AbbottDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1945
- Bowers v. Seas Shipping Co., IncCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1950
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.