Citation network
Norton Vs. Warner Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 27, 1944
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Norton v. WarnerSearch
-
Co. - 321 U.S. 565 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court Norton v. WarnerSearch
-
Co., 321 U.S. 565 (1944) Norton v. WarnerSearch
-
of the asserted failure of the court below to give proper effect to our decision in South Chicago Coal & Dock Co. v. BassettSearch
-
even though the evidence permitted conflicting inferences. Id., p. 309 U. S. 260 . And see Parker v. MotorSearch
-
of the Deputy Commissioner under the Act was not new. It had been stated in substantially similar terms in Voehl v. IndemnitySearch
-
Insurance Co., 288 U. S. 162 , 288 U. S. 166 , and in Del Vecchio v. BowersSearch
-
We reviewed the history of the Act in the Bassett case and in the Parker case, and more recently in Davis v. DepartmentSearch
-
noted in those cases, the Act was adopted to meet the difficulties engendered by the decision in Southern Pacific Co. v. JensenSearch
-
U. S. 205 . And see Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. StewartSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
a crew of a vessel under the Act was successfully opposed by the representatives of maritime employees. See Nogueira v. NewSearch
-
by maritime law, are entitled to maintenance and cure, a remedy not restricted to accidents. As we said in Aguilar v. StandardSearch
-
in the course of their employment. And, in such actions, assumption of risk is no defense. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. SmithSearch
-
in admiralty for injuries caused by unseaworthiness of the vessel or its appurtenant appliances and equipment. Mahnich v. SouthernSearch
-
Seabrook v. RaftSearch
-
City of Los Angeles v. UnitedSearch
-
Ellis v. UnitedSearch
-
as Mr. Justice Story said in United States v. WinnSearch
-
Disbrow v. WalshSearch
-
had that permanent attachment to the vessel which commonly characterizes a crew. See A. L. Mechling Barge Line v. BassettSearch
-
it affords, and excluded from recovery under the Jones Act or be denied relief in admiralty. See Maryland Casualty Co. v. LawsonSearch
-
Loverich v. WarnerSearch
-
Cantey v. McLainSearch
-
Cf. the finding of the Deputy Commissioner in Diomede v. LoweSearch
-
In Davis v. DepartmentSearch
-
U. S. 50 . And see Carumbo v. CapeSearch
-
Mooore Dry Dock Co. v. PillsburySearch
-
Henderson v. JonesSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Norton v. WarnerSearch
-
South Chicago Coal & Dock Co. v. BassettSearch
-
Parker v. MotorSearch
-
Voehl v. IndemnitySearch
-
Davis v. DepartmentSearch
-
Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. StewartSearch
-
See Nogueira v. NewSearch
-
Aguilar v. StandardSearch
-
Mahnich v. SouthernSearch
-
United States v. WinnSearch
-
See A. L. Mechling Barge Line v. BassettSearch
-
See Maryland Casualty Co. v. LawsonSearch
-
Diomede v. LoweSearch
-
Carumbo v. CapeSearch
-
Mooore Dry Dock Co. v. PillsburySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial