Legal Opinion
Security Pacific Bank v. M/V Conquest
High Court of American Samoa
Decided January 10, 1985No. CA No. 17-84Published
1Opinion of the CourtGardner, C.J.
On December 5; 1984, I made a ruling in an order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. 'That ruling contained a serious flaw. It was wrong.
*41At issue was the meaning of a sentence contained in 46 U.S.C. 951, which reads, "Original jurisdiction of all such suits [foreclosure of preferred ship mortgages] is granted to the district courts of the United States exclusively." I held that since this court is not a United States district court it has no such jurisdiction. The ruling was succinct, simple, direct, straightforward — and erroneous. This unfortunate result was obtained by the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Detroit Trust Co. v. the Thomas BarlumSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Hazen Research, Inc. v. Omega Minerals, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
- Davis v. MasonSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Ares ex rel. S/S Colon v. S/S ColonDistrict Court, Canal Zone · 1967
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.