Legal Opinion
Chiquita Intern. Ltd. v. LIVERPOOL AND LONDON SS PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY ASSOCIATION LTD.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided November 6, 2000No. 00 CIV. 0247 RWSPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
On occasion, long accepted practices are challenged under an unusual fact situation, and the instant motion for summary judgment brought by plaintiff Chiquita International Limited and Its Interested Cargo Underwriters (“CIL”) against defendant Liverpool & London Protection and Indemnity Management Limited (“L & L”), pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is one such instance. The motion seeks specific performance of a provision in a Letter of Undertaking (“LOU”) issued by L & L to avoid the arrest of a vessel of its insured. L & L has…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Carole Tomka v. The Seiler Corporation, Daniel Lucey, David Polonsky and Timothy ConroyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- James O. Quarles v. General Motors Corporation (Motors Holding Division)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- Hunt Ltd. v. Lifschultz Fast Freight, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1989
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- El Paso Production GOM, Inc. v. SmithDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 2005
- Crescent Towing & Salvage Co. v. CHIOS BEAUTY MVCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2010
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. Port AuthorityDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010
- Hawkspere Shipping Co. v. 65 Bundles of Secondary Aluminum, Grade A380.1District Court, D. Maryland · 2001
- In Re September 11 LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.