Legal Opinion
Metropolitan Stevedore Company, a Corporation v. Dampskisaktieselskabet International, a Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 11, 1960No. 16399_1PublishedCited by 60 opinions
1Per curiam
We are satisfied in this matter that the exhaustive opinion of the trial judge, supported by the subsequent majority opinion in Crumady v. The Joachim Hendrik Fisser, 1959, 358 U.S. 423, 79 S.Ct. 445, 3 L.Ed.2d 413, correctly decides the issues involved herein.
We therefore refer to and adopt the recited facts and the conclusions of that court. Hugev v. Dampskisaktieselskabet International, D.C.S.D.Cal.1959, 170 F.Supp. 601.
Appellant first differs with the trial court’s conclusions by urging that a more extensive duty is owed to the stevedoring company by the ship than that found due by the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Crumady v. the Joachim Hendrik FisserSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Weyerhaeuser Steamship Co. v. Nacirema Operating Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
- United New York & New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Ass'n v. HaleckiSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Hugev v. Dampskisaktieselskabet InternationalDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1959
3Cited by60 opinions
- Italia Societa Rer Azioni Di Navigazione v. Oregon Stevedoring Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., S.A.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Federal Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Burnside Shipping Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
- D/S Ove Skou v. HebertCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1966
- John Dodge v. Mitsui Shintaku Ginko K. K. Tokyo, and Brady-Hamilton Stevedore Co., Intervenor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.