Citation network
Sisson Vs. Ruby
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 25, 1990
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
-
U.S. 358 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Sisson v. RubySearch
-
U.S. 358 (1990) Sisson v. RubySearch
-
arises out of an activity that bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. Foremost Ins. Co. v. RichardsonSearch
-
the incident that may have rendered it more or less likely to disrupt commercial activity. See Executive Jet Aviation v. CitySearch
-
Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. CitySearch
-
U. S. 670 , n. 2, between an 18-foot pleasure boat and a 16-foot recreational fishing boat, see Richardson v. ForemostSearch
-
most significant hazards facing commercial vessels. Page 497 U. S. 363 See, e.g., Southport Fisheries, Inc. v. SaskatchewanSearch
-
also reveal that all the relevant entities were engaged in a common form of activity. See Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. CitySearch
-
Kelly v. SmithSearch
-
In other Circuits, this test has continued to dominate the landscape even in the wake of Foremost. See, e.g., Drake v. RaymarkSearch
-
Guidry v. DurkinSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Lewis Charters, Inc. v. HuckinsSearch
-
CA11 1989). The Fourth Circuit appears to follow Kelly as well, although how closely is unclear. Compare Oman v. Johns-ManvilleSearch
-
emphasis added), with Bubla v. BradshawSearch
-
as exclusive). The precise state of the law in the Fifth Circuit after Foremost is also unclear. Compare Mollett v. PenrodSearch
-
Mollett v. PenrodSearch
-
a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity without applying any additional factors. See Keene Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Kelly v. UnitedSearch
-
F.2d 176, 178-179, n. 4 (1989), but has not set forth in concrete terms the test it would apply, cf. Petersen v. ChesapeakeSearch
-
but I do not agree with the test the Court applies to conclude that this is so. Prior to Foremost Ins. Co. v. RichardsonSearch
-
which had been devised 10 years earlier for torts not involving vessels, see Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. CitySearch
-
Despite that passage, however, we held in Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. CitySearch
-
U. S. 254 , would be deemed within the admiralty jurisdiction without further inquiry. In Foremost Ins. Co. v. RichardsonSearch
-
the former having been deemed nonmaritime, See People's Ferry Co. of Boston v. BeersSearch
-
How. 393 (1858), and the latter maritime, see New Bedford Dry Dock Co. v. PurdySearch
-
it was revolutionizing admiralty jurisdiction. It is noteworthy, moreover, that a later case, Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. TallentireSearch
-
Z. Chafee, The Thomas M. Cooley Lectures, Some Problems of Equity 312 (1950) (quoting Hanover Star Milling Co. v. MetcalfSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Sisson v. RubySearch
-
See Executive Jet Aviation v. CitySearch
-
Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. CitySearch
-
Richardson v. ForemostSearch
-
Southport Fisheries, Inc. v. SaskatchewanSearch
-
See Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. CitySearch
-
Drake v. RaymarkSearch
-
Compare Oman v. Johns-ManvilleSearch
-
Bubla v. BradshawSearch
-
Compare Mollett v. PenrodSearch
-
Mollett v. PenrodSearch
-
See Keene Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Petersen v. ChesapeakeSearch
-
In Foremost Ins. Co. v. RichardsonSearch
-
See People's Ferry Co. of Boston v. BeersSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial