Citation network
Stewart Vs. Dutra Constr. Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 22, 2005
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
-
Stewart v. DutraSearch
-
Constr. Co. - 03-814 (2005) Syllabus October Term, 2004 Stewart V. DutraSearch
-
Constr. Co. Supreme Court of the United States Stewart V. DutraSearch
-
Inc. v. WilanderSearch
-
U. S. 337 , and Chandris, Inc. v. LatsisSearch
-
depended on whether the structure was an instrument of naval transportation. See Ellis v. UnitedSearch
-
consistently with general maritime law. Norton v. WarnerSearch
-
c) Cope v. ValletteSearch
-
Dry Dock Co., 119 U. S. 625 , and Evansville & Bowling Green Packet Co. v. CheroSearch
-
which all other Members joined, except Rehnquist, C. J., who took no part in the decision of the case. Stewart v. DutraSearch
-
Constr. Co. - 03-814 (2005) Opinion of the Court Stewart V. DutraSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 03-814 Willard Stewart, Petitioner V. DutraSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
en banc decision in DiGiovanni v. TraylorSearch
-
F. 3d 10, 13 (CA1 2003) (quoting Morehead v. Atkinson-KiewitSearch
-
both to maintenance and cure (or the right to be cared for and paid wages during the voyage, see, e.g., Harden v. GordonSearch
-
Congress enacted the Jones Act in 1920 to remove this bar to negligence suits by seamen. See Chandris, Inc. v. LatsisSearch
-
as the general maritime law found it. Chandris , supra , at 355 (citing Warner v. GoltraSearch
-
Swanson v. MarraSearch
-
The Alabama , 19 F. 544, 545 (SD Ala. 1884). See also Huismann v. TheSearch
-
U. S. 309 (1878), and then explicitly in Ellis v. UnitedSearch
-
function, since in performing their work they carried machinery, equipment, and crew over water. See, e.g., Butler v. EllisSearch
-
s established meaning in general maritime law. For instance, in Norton v. WarnerSearch
-
Stat., pt. 1, p. 1. In a pair of cases, the Court held that a drydock, Cope v. ValletteSearch
-
U. S. 625 , 630 (1887), and a wharfboat attached to the mainland, Evansville & Bowling Green Packet Co. v. CheroSearch
-
matter do not remain vessels merely because of the remote possibility that they may one day sail again. See Pavone v. MississippiSearch
-
Kathriner v. UniseaSearch
-
array of fixed structures not commonly thought of as capable of being used for water transport. See, e.g., Leocal v. AshcroftSearch
-
quoting Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
of its crew. C The Court of Appeals, relying on its previous en banc decision in DiGiovanni v. TraylorSearch
-
Roper v. UnitedSearch
-
West v. UnitedSearch
-
for purposes of the Jones Act or the LHWCA. See, e.g. , United States v. TempletonSearch
-
F. 3d, at 13 (quoting Morehead v. Atkinson-KiewitSearch
-
Saylor v. TaylorSearch
-
instead lists the parties liable for the negligent operation of a vessel. See McCarthy v. TheSearch
-
Huismann v. TheSearch
-
Eastern S. S. Corp. v. GreatSearch
-
Los Angeles v. UnitedSearch
-
and its engineers were seamen). Footnote 6 See, e.g., Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. GreatSearch
-
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. PfeiferSearch
-
cf. Senko v. LaCrosseSearch
-
Inc. v. WilanderSearch
-
and Chandris, Inc. v. LatsisSearch
-
See Ellis v. UnitedSearch
-
Norton v. WarnerSearch
-
Cope v. ValletteSearch
-
and Evansville & Bowling Green Packet Co. v. CheroSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial