Hildebrand v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Per curiam
As to the issues of unseaworthiness and contributory negligence, raised by the respondent’s cross-appeal, we affirm on Judge Dawson’s findings and opinion. 134 F.Supp. 514. The findings which the respondent attacks are not clearly erroneous. And under our recent holding in Poignant v. United States, 225 F.2d 595, it is of no moment that the un-seaworthy condition causing the harm may have arisen after the voyage commenced.
Both libelant and respondent, by appeal and cross-appeal, complain of the trial judge’s award of damages. But the findings on the issue of damages are also ones of fact,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Catherine Poignant, Libellant-Appellant v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1955
- Lukmanis v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
- Thorleif Pedersen, Libellant-Appellant v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1955
- Hildebrand v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1954
3Cited by6 opinions
- L. C. Haynes v. Rederi A/s AladdinCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1966
- San Pedro Compania Armadoras, S.A. v. George Nicholas Yannacopoulos, George Nicholas Yannacopoulos v. San Pedro Compania Armadoras, S.A.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1966
- Getty Oil Co. (Eastern Operations), Inc. v. SS Ponce De LeonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977
- Galban v. Penn Shipping Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1960
- Getty Oil Company (Eastern Operations), Inc. v. Ss Ponce De LeonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.