Legal Opinion
Smith v. Union Oil Co.
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided June 29, 1966No. Nos. 17031, 29308PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BEEKS, District Judge.
These cases have presented to the court the necessity of making a number of difficult factual and legal determinations. On several of the factual issues the evidence does not clearly preponderate for either side. The court has carefully reviewed and considered the testimony and the exhibits not once, but several times. Upon such examination of the evidence and after considerable reflection thereupon the court finds as set forth below.
Proceeding in chronological order, the first issue which the court must decide is the degree of peril to the SANTA MARIA…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- The CamancheSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Lago Oil & Transport Co., Ltd., Libellant-Appellant v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1955
- Kimes v. United States the William M. MeredithCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
3Cited by5 opinions
- Nunley v. M/V Dauntless ColocotronisCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
- Markakis v. S/S VOLENDAMDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1980
- Berry v. Boat Giannina B., Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1978
- McNabb v. O.S. BowfinDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1983
- Walter Douglas Nunley v. M/v Dauntless Colocotronis, Etc. v. Combi Lines, Walter Douglas Nunley v. M/v Dauntless Colocotronis, Estrella Leal Navegacion S.A., Sea Unity-Shipping S.A., and Assurance Foreningen Gard, Cross-Appellees v. Tenneco Oil Company and United States of America, Defendants-Cross-Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants v. Combi Lines (Hapag-Lloyd A.G., Holland American Lines Freight B.V and International Transport b.v.) and Its Insurer, the United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Assn (Bermuda) Ltd., Cross-Appellees, and Combi Lines (Hapag-Lloyd A.G., and the United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Assn (Bermuda), Ltd., Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989