Legal Opinion

Colorificio Italiano Max Meyer, S.P.A. v. S/S Hellenic Wave v. Superintendence Co.

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided November 19, 1969No. 27693PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CARSWELL, Circuit Judge:

This case presents a very narrow issue of admissibility of evidence in an admiralty case.1 We conclude that the district court did not err in excluding appellants’ proffer of certain survey reports and a chemical analysis. All of these documents were prepared in Genoa, Italy, and the authors were not before the court. Appellant concedes that the proffer was entirely hearsay, but urges that it was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to deny their admission into evidence. Appellant correctly calls our attention to the settled proposition that the elaborate rules of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Palmer v. HoffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. Patricia Lebouef Murphy, as Administratrix of the Estate of Edward Fontenot, Deceased, Etc. v. Houma Well Service, and Eva C. Fontenot, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
  3. James Leo Huth v. Southern Pacific CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
  4. Balfour v. The DirectorDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1888
  5. The VividDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1870

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. United States v. Hancho C. KimCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1979
  2. Taxinet Corp. v. Santiago LeonCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2024
  3. Colorificio Italiano Max Meyer, S.P.A., and Nymco, S.P.A. v. S/s Hellenic Wave, Her Engines, Tackle, Apparel, Furniture, Etc., and Hellenic Lines Limited and Hansen & Tidemann, Inc. v. Superintendence Company, Inc., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1969
  4. United States v. StrangstalienUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1979

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

Powered by the Exa API