Legal Opinion

Miceli v. Interressantskapet Sea Transport

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided May 4, 1976No. 74 Civ. 2185 (IBC)PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

IRVING BEN COOPER, District Judge.

Plaintiff moves for an order granting him judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or alternatively, a new trial pursuant to Rules 50(b) and 59, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff brought this diversity action against defendant 1ST to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained aboard defendant’s vessel, the M/S CONCORDIA FANA. Defendant 1ST impleaded third-party defendant Universal Terminal & Stevedoring Corp. Initially, plaintiff based his claim for damages upon two theories, defendant’s negligence and the ship’s unseaworthiness.…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. ShipmanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
  2. Lavender v. KurnSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  3. Samuel Simblest v. Joseph MaynardCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1970
  4. Eugene O'COnnOr v. The Pennsylvania Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
  5. W. A. Compton v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1967

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Rosera v. International Harvester Co.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1986
  2. St. Clair v. PipalDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API