# Thames Shipyard & Repair Co. v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · November 26, 2003 · 350 F.3d 247

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9440110

## Case

- **Full name:** THAMES SHIPYARD AND REPAIR COMPANY, Plaintiff in Cross Claim, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Appellee; Northern Voyager Limited Partnership; OneBeacon America Insurance Company F/K/A/ Commercial Union Insurance Company, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. United States, Defendant, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
- **Decided:** November 26, 2003
- **Citations:** 350 F.3d 247; 2004 A.M.C. 112; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 24043; 2003 WL 22801381
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Torruella
- **Judges:** Torruella, Campbell, Stahl
- **Cited by:** 48 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9440110

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the discretionary function exception applied where the Coast Guard had implied statutory authority to order the evacuation of a sinking ship
- holding that the Coast Guard’s forcible evacuation of a sinking sea vessel constituted a seizure of the persons therein
- finding Indian Towing inapposite because the discretionary function exception was not at issue

## Opinion text

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
In my thirty years as a judge, I cannot recall a case that more squarely falls within the provisions of Fed. R. App. P. 35(a)(2) as meriting en banc review, particularly when one considers the unprecedented nature of the authority conceded to the Coast Guard by the panel opinion and the lack of any authority supportive of its conclusion. The failure to grant en banc review is likely to cause the bar to lose its bearings when it compares the exceptional importance of the issues presented in this appeal with those raised in other cases in which en banc review has been granted by this court. In my view, the full active court *227 should hear and decide this appeal affecting the entire maritime and maritime insurance industries. Given the failure of this court to so act, the matter deserves consideration by the Supreme Court, and petitioners are urged to seek such relief.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9440110. Public record. Not legal advice.