Citation network
Exxon Corp. Vs. Central Gulf Lines, Inc.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 03, 1991
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Exxon Corp. v. CentralSearch
-
Gulf Lines, Inc. - 500 U.S. 603 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Exxon Corp. v. CentralSearch
-
Gulf Lines, Inc., 500 U.S. 603 (1991) Exxon Corporation v. CentralSearch
-
matter must fall within the admiralty jurisdiction, it followed Second Circuit precedent, which holds that Minturn v. MaynardSearch
-
to sue in admiralty on a contract -- have been discredited, and are no longer the law of this Court. See Archawski v. HaniotiSearch
-
S.S. Co. v. HallSearch
-
of the contract at issue should be the crucial consideration in assessing admiralty jurisdiction. Insurance Co. v. DunhamSearch
-
the purpose of the grant of admiralty jurisdiction, which is the protection of maritime commerce, Foremost Ins. Co. v. RichardsonSearch
-
case raises the question whether admiralty jurisdiction extends to claims arising from agency contracts. In Minturn v. MaynardSearch
-
F.Supp. 155, 158 (SDNY 1989). Relying on the Second Circuit's decision in Peralta Shipping Corp. v. SmithSearch
-
at 159-161. In Peralta, the Second Circuit held that it was constrained by this Court's decision in Minturn v. MaynardSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
In determining the boundaries of admiralty jurisdiction, we look to the purpose of the grant. See Insurance Co. v. DunhamSearch
-
U. S. 358 , 497 U. S. 367 (1990), quoting Foremost Ins. Co. v. RichardsonSearch
-
The Steamboat Orleans v. PhoebusSearch
-
U. S. 182 (1837), or in actions in assumpsit for the wrongful withholding of money, see Archawski v. HaniotiSearch
-
had to have some form of a lien interest in the vessel, even if the action was one in personam. See e.g., Gardner v. TheSearch
-
In Insurance Co. v. DunhamSearch
-
the relevance of the hypothecation requirement to establishing admiralty jurisdiction. See North Pacific S.S. Co. v. HallSearch
-
Detroit Trust Co. v. TheSearch
-
is to focus the jurisdictional inquiry upon whether the nature of the transaction was maritime. See e.g., Kossick v. UnitedSearch
-
Fruit Co., 365 U. S. 731 , 365 U. S. 735 -738 (1961). See also Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. DimonSearch
-
entertaining an action in admiralty for the value of fuel oil furnished to a vessel), cert. denied sub nom. Knutsen v. AssociatedSearch
-
jurisdiction -- the Minturn rule -- has been fused with the preliminary contract rule. See Cory Bros. & Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
and Peralta Shipping Corp. v. SmithSearch
-
agency contracts excluded), cert. denied, 470 U. S. 1031 (1985), with Hinkins Steamship Agency, Inc. v. FreightersSearch
-
and Hadjipateras v. PacificaSearch
-
The Propeller Genesee Chief v. FitzhughSearch
-
Insurance Co. v. DunhamSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Exxon Corp. v. CentralSearch
-
Exxon Corporation v. CentralSearch
-
Court. See Archawski v. HaniotiSearch
-
In Minturn v. MaynardSearch
-
Peralta Shipping Corp. v. SmithSearch
-
See Insurance Co. v. DunhamSearch
-
Gardner v. TheSearch
-
See North Pacific S.S. Co. v. HallSearch
-
Kossick v. UnitedSearch
-
Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. DimonSearch
-
Knutsen v. AssociatedSearch
-
See Cory Bros. & Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Hinkins Steamship Agency, Inc. v. FreightersSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial