Case law

Tracor Marine Inc. v. M/V MARGOTH

403 F. Supp. 392 · District Court, Canal Zone · Nov 20, 1975

At approximately 0835 the tow line was cast off and the FAY, having left some of its crew members on board MARGOTH, proceeded to anchor in Cristobal harbour. … [Norris, The Law of Salvage, § 210; The “M/V JOSE LUIS AZNAR”, Civil No. 7583 DC Canal Zone, Balboa Division]. 6.

Laeisz v. Panama Canal Co.

373 F. Supp. 263 · District Court, Canal Zone · Apr 1, 1974

of the vessel, including the testimony of witnesses appearing before the Board, the exhibits annexed to the report, and the Findings of Fact and Opinion of the Board. … Andros Shipping Co. v. Panama Canal Company, 298 F.2d 720, 726 (5th Cir. 1962); Mariblanca Navegacion, S. A. v. Panama Canal Company, 298 F.2d 729, 733 (5th Cir. 1962); Dreyfus & Cie v.

Andros Shipping Co. v. Panama Canal Company

184 F. Supp. 246 · District Court, Canal Zone · Jun 6, 1960

In Capehorn Steamship Co. v. … Sweeney v. Erving, 1913, 228 U.S. 233 , 33 S.Ct. 416 , 57 L.Ed. 815 ; Bruce v. Debuse Barras Co., D.C. E.D.La.1958, 169 F.Supp. 90, 93 . 9.

Aparicio v. Swan Lake

479 F. Supp. 1088 · District Court, Canal Zone · Nov 20, 1979

In Sandoval v. Mitsui Sempaku K.K. Tokyo, 460 F.2d 1163 (5th Cir. 1972), a case involving a pre-1972 accident, the Fifth Circuit held that both Sieracki v. … It is true that they performed some work traditionally performed by seamen, for they worked on board ship assisting the vessel in navigation by fastening and unfastening lines. See Sandoval v. Mitsui Sempaku K.K.

Aire Frio, S. A. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

309 F. Supp. 1388 · District Court, Canal Zone · Mar 11, 1970

That the appeal taken by plaintiff before the USARSO Board of Contract Appeals is a “suit” within the meaning of paragraph 11(a) of the policy, which suit defendant was obligated to defend by means of the prosecution of the … Co., Inc. v. Michigan Mutual Liability Co., 15 N.Y.2d 888 , 258 N.Y.S.2d 423 , 206 N.E.2d 357 ). 2.

Milanes-Canamero v. Richardson

404 F. Supp. 1281 · District Court, Canal Zone · Aug 12, 1975

in pretrial confinement on June 20, 1975 and that he was charged with larceny of property of a value of $600, aggravated assault “on an individual by the name of Kemp, and simple assault on an individual by the name of Brown … “It is the primary business of armies and navies to fight or be ready to fight wars should the occasion arise”, Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 17 , 76 S. Ct. 1, 5 , 100 L.Ed. 8 (1955).

Esso Standard Oil, S. A. v. The S.S. Sabrina & Companie De Navegacion Anne S. A.

154 F. Supp. 720 · District Court, Canal Zone · Mar 24, 1957

The vessel was boarded by the port authorities and Mr. Hermogenes Moreno F., Esso’s terminal superintendent at San Jose. … Moreno on board and in fact he was on board almost continuously during the stay of the vessel at the port.

Canal Zone Central Labor Union & Metal Trades Council v. Fleming

246 F. Supp. 998 · District Court, Canal Zone · Nov 9, 1965

Sweet v. B. F. Goodrich and Co., D.C., 68 F.Supp. 782 ; Crabb v. Welden Bros., 8 Cir., 164 F.2d 797 , and McDaniel v. Brown and Root, 10 Cir., 172 F.2d 466 . See also Farmer v. … Continental Bank & Trust Co. v. Woodall, 10 Cir., 239 F.2d 707 ; Lane v. Watts, 234 U.S. 525 , 34 S.Ct. 965 , 58 L.Ed. 1440 ; State of Colorado v.

Louis Dreyfus & Cie. v. Panama Canal Co.

180 F. Supp. 313 · District Court, Canal Zone · Feb 2, 1960

Under the holdings of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the cases of Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Panama Canal Company, 272 F.2d 716 and Panama Canal Company v. … Sweeney v. Erving, 1913, 228 U.S. 233 , 33 S.Ct. 416 , 57 L.Ed. 815 . Bruce v. Debuse Barras Company, D.C.E.D.La.1958, 169 F.Supp. 90, 93 . 7.

CANAL ZONE CENTRAL LABOR UNION, ETC. v. Fleming

246 F. Supp. 998 · District Court, Canal Zone · Nov 10, 1965

Sweet v. B. F. Goodrich and Co., D.C., 68 F.Supp. 782 ; Crabb v. Welden Bros., 8 Cir., 164 F.2d 797 , and McDaniel v. Brown and Root, 10 Cir., 172 F.2d 466 . See also Farmer v. … Continental Bank & Trust Co. v. Woodall, 10 Cir., 239 F.2d 707 ; Lane v. Watts, 234 U.S. 525 , 34 S.Ct. 965 , 58 L.Ed. 1440 ; State of Colorado v.

Seafarer, S.A. v. Panama Canal Co.

168 F. Supp. 427 · District Court, Canal Zone · Aug 26, 1955

The vessel was proceeding as a toll paying *428 ship with a Panama Canal Pilot on board as required by 35 C.F.R. 4.22, as adopted by order of the Secretary of the Army, Canal Zone Order 30, January 6, 1953, 18 F.R. 28 (Sec … Victorias Milling Co., Inc., v.

Gulf Oil Corp. v. Panama Canal Co.

269 F. Supp. 793 · District Court, Canal Zone · Jun 5, 1967

The Supervising Inspector, Board of Local Inspectors denied the request for investigation and the claim for damages was rejected. … See Andros Shipping Co. v. Panama Canal Company, 298 F.2d 720 (1962); Vic *796 torias Milling Co. v. Panama Canal Company, 272 F.2d 716 (1959). Both cases were decided in the U. S. Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit.

Pastrana v. M/V JANE D.

283 F. Supp. 73 · District Court, Canal Zone · Mar 27, 1968

At all times material hereto, plaintiffs were employed as seamen aboard the defendant vessel, M/V JANE D. 2. … In addition to the plaintiffs and Adiel there were on board one Juan Suarez who was a “pusher” or “straw boss” until sailing time when he became designated as Captain or navigator, and one John Tsimekles, who was a ships’

Gulf Oil Corp. v. Panama Canal Co.

311 F. Supp. 1307 · District Court, Canal Zone · Apr 24, 1970

Pascavage boarded the GULFSPRAY to take her to dock for bunkers. … Rogers Construction Corp. v. United States, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 118 F.Supp. 927, 930 ; Sociedad de Transportes Marítimos, SA, v. Panama Canal Company, supra. 5.

Mariblanca Navegacion, S.A. v. Panama Canal Co.

182 F. Supp. 369 · District Court, Canal Zone · Jun 18, 1956

On June 19, 1955, at about 9:30 .a. m., Pilot Dietz boarded the Mariposa in the Pacific approach of the Panama -Canal for the northbound transit. On boarding the vessel he went directly to the pilothouse. … Sweeney v. Erving, 1913, 228 U.S. 233 , 33 S.Ct. 416 , 57 L.Ed. 815 ; Bruce v. De Buse Barras Co. (M/V D-14), D.C.E.D.La. 1958, 169 F.Supp. 90, 93 . 7.

Berger v. Belgulf Tankers, S. A.

270 F. Supp. 813 · District Court, Canal Zone · Jul 14, 1967

The SS BELGULF PROGRESS was boarded by Panama Canal Pilot Captain Robert D. Valentine at approximately 1630 hours on September 13, 1962 while she lay at anchor in Limón Bay. … United States v. S. S. Soya Atlantic, 4 Cir., 330 F.2d 732 (1964); Compania de Navigacion Cebaco, S. A. v. The Steel Flyer, 4 Cir., 200 F.2d 643 ; The Knoxville City, 9 Cir., 112 F.2d 223 . 5.

Government of the Canal Zone v. Furukawa

361 F. Supp. 194 · District Court, Canal Zone · Aug 6, 1973

Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 , 80 S.Ct. 168 , 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). … United States v. Kazmierczak, 16 USCMA 594 , 37 CMR 214 ; United States v. Welch, 19 USCMA 134 , 41 CMR 134 (1969).

Ares ex rel. S/S Colon v. S/S Colon

269 F. Supp. 763 · District Court, Canal Zone · Jul 3, 1967

“In 1925, the Department of Labor, construing a provision in the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, c. 29, 39 Stat. 874 , relating to seamen on board vessels arriving in the United States from ‘any foreign port or place … Luckenbach Steamship Company v. United States, 280 U.S. 173 , 50 S.Ct. 148 , 74 L.Ed. 356 (1930).

Panama Canal Co. v. Compania Nacional De Navegacion, S. A.

463 F. Supp. 330 · District Court, Canal Zone · Oct 24, 1978

See Hines, Inc. v. … Public Utilities Comm, of California v. U. S., 355 U.S. 534, 542-43 , 78 S.Ct. 466 , 452, 2 L.Ed.2d 470 (1958); Farkas v.

Wirtz v. Compania de Servicios Electricos, S.A.

304 F. Supp. 697 · District Court, Canal Zone · Jul 10, 1967

Mitchell v. Lublin McGaughy and Associates, 358 U.S. 207 , 79 S.Ct. 260 , 3 L.Ed.2d 243 ; Mitchell v. Empire Gas Engineering Co., 256 F.2d 781 (CA 5); Mitchell v. Blanchard, 272 F.2d 574 (CA 5); Mitchell v. … McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., supra; Credit Service Inc., v. Fleming, supra; McComb v. Norris, 177 F.2d 357 (CA 4); Frost-Arnett Co., v. Tobin, 264 F.2d 246 (CA 6).