Citation network
The Arizona Vs. Anelich
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 27, 1936
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. 110 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court The Arizona v. AnelichSearch
-
U.S. 110 (1936) The Arizona v. AnelichSearch
-
under the Jones Act. Since the maritime law allowed no recovery for the wrongful death of a seaman, see Lindgren v. UnitedSearch
-
Panama Railroad Co. v. JohnsonSearch
-
U. S. 375 , 264 U. S. 388 -389, and see Chelentis v. LuckenbachSearch
-
Pacific S.S. Co. v. PetersonSearch
-
defective appliances, the use of which is not required by the Federal Safety Appliance Act, see Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. HortonSearch
-
Jacobs v. SouthernSearch
-
Boldt v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Pacific Steamship Co. v. PetersonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 158 , 189 U. S. 175 , and they have often been cited with approval by this Court. See Chelentis v. LuckenbachSearch
-
Page 298 U. S. 121 Carlisle Packing Co. v. SandangerSearch
-
Lindgren v. UnitedSearch
-
It was definitely applied by this Court in Carlisle Packing Co. v. SandangerSearch
-
Plamals v. S.SSearch
-
Olson v. FlavelSearch
-
F. 477, overruling Peterson v. TheSearch
-
John A. Roebling's Sons Co. v. EricksonSearch
-
Cricket S.S. Co. v. ParrySearch
-
Storgard v. FranceSearch
-
was either denied or ignored in circumstances plainly calling for its application had it been available. Halverson v. NisenSearch
-
Lafourche Packet Co. v. HendersonSearch
-
Globe S.S. Co. v. MossSearch
-
defective appliances make such a defense, as distinguished from contributory negligence, see Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. HortonSearch
-
Grimberg v. AdmiralSearch
-
United States Shipping Board E.F. Corp. v. O'SheaSearch
-
States S.S. Co. v. BerglannSearch
-
who are peculiarly the wards of admiralty. Its purpose was to enlarge that protection, not to narrow it. Cf. Chelentis v. LuckenbachSearch
-
others of the Merchant Marine Act, of which it is a part, are to be liberally construed to attain that end, see Cortes v. BaltimoreSearch
-
Alpha S.S. Corp. v. CainSearch
-
been a development from his privilege to abandon a vessel improperly fitted out. The privilege was recognized in Dixon v. TheSearch
-
cases recognizing the seaman's right to consequential damages for injuries resulting from faulty equipment. Halverson v. NisenSearch
-
The Julia Fowler, 49 F. 277. A seaman was denied recovery for injuries in Couch v. SteeleSearch
-
See Hedley v. PinkneySearch
-
Coast S.S. Co. v. BradySearch
-
Zinnel v. UnitedSearch
-
Howarth v. UnitedSearch
-
Masjulis v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. BoykinSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court The Arizona v. AnelichSearch
-
Chelentis v. LuckenbachSearch
-
Court. See Chelentis v. LuckenbachSearch
-
Plamals v. S.SSearch
-
Peterson v. TheSearch
-
Halverson v. NisenSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial