Legal Opinion
Greime v. Freeman
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 1, 1922No. 3807PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHunt, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Appellant’s position is that there was a failure to supply a proper appliance, in that the ship should have furnished falls long enough to reach without the need of unhooking the offshore one, when moving the pile of lumber. The falls were the same length, but, of course', the offshore one would not reach a load, if it laid as far away from the inshore fall as that fall could reach.
We cannot see that the ship should be held liable, unless the two falls were too short to reach a load placed within such distances as are usually included as within the reach of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- John A. Roebling's Sons Co. of New York v. EricksonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1919
- Bowes v. BaumertCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1918
- Harrell v. Atlas Portland Cement Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1918
- Briody v. The Persian MonarchCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1893
- Western Fuel Co. v. GarciaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1919
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Mahnich v. Southern Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Joe Freitas v. Pacific-Atlantic Steamship Company, a Corporation, and Marine Terminals CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1955
- Edward S. Mesle v. Kea Steamship Corporation, (Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corporation)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1958
- The TawmieCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1936
- Crumady v. The Joachim Hendrik FisserCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1957
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.