Citation network
Hust Vs. Moore-mccormack Lines, Inc.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 10, 1946
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
-
Hust v. Moore-McCormackSearch
-
Lines, Inc. - 328 U.S. 707 (1946) U.S. Supreme Court Hust v. Moore-McCormackSearch
-
Lines, Inc., 328 U.S. 707 (1946) Hust v. Moore-McCormackSearch
-
It is around these questions and the effect for determining them of various authorities, particularly Brady v. RooseveltSearch
-
By the decision in Johnson v. FleetSearch
-
Fleet Corp. v. LustgartenSearch
-
U. S. 320 , a companion Page 328 U. S. 717 case. But, in Brady v. RooseveltSearch
-
Although never specifically decided here, this was held in Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
to settled rights by clear and unequivocal command. It is not permissible to find one by implication. Brady v. RooseveltSearch
-
for such injuries as he incurred. This case, like Labor Board v. HearstSearch
-
Cf. Brady v. RooseveltSearch
-
See Labor Board v. HearstSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Gay v. PopeSearch
-
McCormick v. Moore-McCormackSearch
-
Moss v. AlaskaSearch
-
Bast v. American-HawaiianSearch
-
Schaller v. MatsonSearch
-
Navigation Co., 43 N.Y.S.2d 566. Respondent relies upon Algiere v. CosmopolitanSearch
-
Pedersen v. StockardSearch
-
Nielsen v. AmericanSearch
-
Steele v. AmericanSearch
-
Baker v. Moore-McCormackSearch
-
Conlon v. HammondSearch
-
Williams v. AmericanSearch
-
Ferris v. AmericanSearch
-
Murray v. AmericanSearch
-
Fox v. AlcoaSearch
-
See Warner v. GoltraSearch
-
Gerradin v. UnitedSearch
-
Garrett v. Moore-McCormackSearch
-
different cases were disposed of in the single opinion, including in addition to the Johnson case, Fleet Corp. v. LustgartenSearch
-
to this provision, the United States Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corporation was set up. See Sloan Shipyards Corp. v. MerchantSearch
-
of the Act and Emergency Fleet Corp. v. RosenbergSearch
-
pro hac vice, and subject to the responsibilities of ownership for the duration of the charter period. Reed v. UnitedSearch
-
Leary v. UnitedSearch
-
construction of the agreement between the parties, and the conduct of the parties under the arrangement. United States v. SheaSearch
-
The responsibility of the master for the operation of the vessel is, moreover, traditional. See United States v. FarnhamSearch
-
simple. But the conventions of the parties do not determine in the eyes of the law the rights of third persons. Brady v. RooseveltSearch
-
U. S. 575 , 317 U. S. 583 . The Court dealt with one species of this problem in Knights of Pythias v. WithersSearch
-
U.S. p. 317 U. S. 576 . The same was true in Quinn v. SouthgateSearch
-
the entire crew and pays their wages. A charterer who has control of the operations is owner pro hac vice. Hills v. LeedsSearch
-
is limited to the remedies of the Suits in Admiralty Act for recovery in tort, the holding in Emergency Fleet Corp. v. LustgartenSearch
-
U. S. 320 , is restored as a rule of law. The Lustgarten case was overruled by Brady v. RooseveltSearch
-
Reed v. UnitedSearch
-
See Garrett v. Moore-McCormackSearch
-
Nolan v. GeneralSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Hust v. Moore-McCormackSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial