Citation network
Amell Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 16, 1966
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Distinguished
-
Amell v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 384 U.S. 158 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Amell v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 384 U.S. 158 (1966) Amell v. UnitedSearch
-
Johansen v. UnitedSearch
-
States, Page 384 U. S. 161 343 U. S. 427 , and the Suits in Admiralty Act, Patterson v. UnitedSearch
-
repealed the Tucker Act so far as the two conflicted. This may readily be conceded, see, e.g., Calmar S.S. Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Matson Navigation Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 284 U. S. 352 . Compare Patterson v. UnitedSearch
-
so deeply woven in the fabric of the law that congressional action is required to overturn it, cf. State Bd. of Ins. v. ToddSearch
-
For example, wage claims by federal employees were found to be expressly within the ambit of the Tucker Act in Bruner v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 343 U. S. 112 , 343 U. S. 115 . In United States v. TownsleySearch
-
hold that the Suits in Admiralty Act restricted all suits in cases like the present to the district courts, cf. Brady v. RooseveltSearch
-
cases that such a request bears a heavy burden of persuasion, Page 384 U. S. 166 e.g., Bulova Watch Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Fourco Glass Co. v. TransmirraSearch
-
Hearne v. UnitedSearch
-
Adams v. UnitedSearch
-
Abbott v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 169 F.Supp. 523, 144 Ct.Cl. 712. See also Continental Casualty Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
A narrow construction of the statute was unanimously rejected in Eastern Transp. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
liable. 272 U.S. at 690. This view was reiterated and reinforced in United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. v. RosenbergSearch
-
U.S. at 276 U. S. 214 . This reservation was laid at rest in Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
Johnson v. FleetSearch
-
an admiralty court if their employer were a private person. The answer is clearly in the affirmative, See Sheppard v. TaylorSearch
-
Kossick v. UnitedSearch
-
It is true that the claim against a private employer might also be litigated in a common law court, See Leon v. GalceranSearch
-
the fact that the claims of these seamen are within the traditional scope of the admiralty jurisdiction. See McCrea v. UnitedSearch
-
Congress extended the limitations period to accommodate those employees who, in reliance upon a prior decision, Hust v. Moore-McCormackSearch
-
Lines, 328 U. S. 707 , overruled in Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. McAllisterSearch
-
Compare Johansen v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 343 U. S. 427 , and Patterson v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Amell v. UnitedSearch
-
Admiralty Act, Patterson v. UnitedSearch
-
Calmar S.S. Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Compare Patterson v. UnitedSearch
-
State Bd. of Ins. v. ToddSearch
-
Bruner v. UnitedSearch
-
In United States v. TownsleySearch
-
Brady v. RooseveltSearch
-
Bulova Watch Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Hearne v. UnitedSearch
-
Continental Casualty Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Eastern Transp. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. v. RosenbergSearch
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
See Sheppard v. TaylorSearch
-
See Leon v. GalceranSearch
-
See McCrea v. UnitedSearch
-
Hust v. Moore-McCormackSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial