Legal Opinion
Sinclair Refining Co. v. The Morania Dolphin
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided December 11, 1959No. 74, Docket 25582PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Per curiam
We find it unnecessary to supplement what is said in Judge Weinfeld’s excellent opinion on the subject of the fault of the Thirtle. We affirm the decree against the Dolphin on the ground of her statutory fault in passing the Thirtle despite the fact that she received no response to her signal for permission to pass. We agree with Judge Weinfeld that the Dolphin has not sustained the heavy burden of proving that this statutory violation “could not have contributed to the occurrence.” The Pennsylvania, 1873, 86 U.S. 125, 136, 22 L.Ed. 148; Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. The Santiago, 2 Cir.,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- The PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. The SantiagoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
3Cited by6 opinions
- Tug Ocean Queen, Inc. v. Tanker Four LakesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1974
- Moran Scow Corporation v. SS BOSTONDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1972
- Clary Towing Co., Inc. v. Port Arthur Towing Co.District Court, E.D. Texas · 1973
- Esso Standard Oil Company, as Owner of the Esso Barge No. 21, Libelant-Cross-Appellant v. The President Garfield and American President Lines, Ltd., Claimant-Respondent-Appellant. American President Lines, Ltd., Cross-Libelant-Appellant v. The Esso New Hampshire and Esso Barge No. 21 and Esso Barge No. 17, and Esso Standard Oil Company, Cross-Respondent-Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1960
- Esso Standard Oil Co. v. President GarfieldCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1960
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.