Legal Opinion · Dissent

Getty Refining & Marketing Co. v. Mt Fadi B

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided July 11, 1985No. 84-1567Published

1DissentMansmann, Circuit Judge

This case requires the eourt to decide whether the district court properly dismissed the appellant’s action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) following the close of evidence in a nonjury trial. My reading of the facts in evidence leads me to conclude that the district court’s holding that “the Robins analysis directly governs the disposition of Getty’s claim” is error. Getty Refining & Marketing Co. v. M/T FADI B, 595 F.Supp. 452, 455 (E.D.Pa.1984) (hereinafter “Getty”) (citing Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303, 48 S.Ct. 134, 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927) (hereinafter…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
  2. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. FlintSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  3. Union Oil Company v. James J. Oppen and John J. MastersonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
  4. Louisiana ex rel. Guste v. M/V TestbankCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1985
  5. Kinsman Transit Company v. City of BuffaloCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API