Citation network
Lauritzen Vs. Larsen
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 25, 1953
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. 571 (1953) U.S. Supreme Court Lauritzen v. LarsenSearch
-
U.S. 571 (1953) Lauritzen v. LarsenSearch
-
had power to determine whether it was or was not well founded in law and in fact. Cf. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. NorthwesternSearch
-
the part of anyone. But, while we limit this to the period within which maximum possible cure can be effected, Farrell v. UnitedSearch
-
American law would be considered operative under prevalent doctrines of international law. Thus, in United States v. PalmerSearch
-
MacLeod v. UnitedSearch
-
Lord Russell of Killowen in The Queen v. JamesonSearch
-
Farrell v. UnitedSearch
-
with the fellow servant doctrine, to which this Court ascribed little, if any, of its intended effect. Chelentis v. LuckenbachSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
to an American citizen's injury sustained in Canada while in service of an American employer. New York Central R. Co. v. ChisholmSearch
-
as well, except as we may in pursuance of our own policy forego or limit exertion of our power. Cunard Steamship Co. v. MellonSearch
-
we concede a territorial government involved only concurrent jurisdiction of offenses aboard our ships. United States v. FloresSearch
-
the ensign overbears most other connecting events in determining applicable law. As this Court held in United States v. FloresSearch
-
supra, at 289 U. S. 158 , and iterated in Cunard S.S. Co. v. MellonSearch
-
U. S. 69 , 313 U. S. 73 . Steele v. BulovaSearch
-
Aguilar v. StandardSearch
-
Oil Co., 318 U. S. 724 , 318 U. S. 730 . DeZon v. AmericanSearch
-
Calmar S.S. Corp. v. TaylorSearch
-
the voyage with sufficient definiteness within the rule applied in The Quoque, 261 F. 414, aff'd, United States v. WestwoodSearch
-
by one of the states of the Union will not preclude action in a sister state, Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. GeorgeSearch
-
on slight connections, because it is a forum Page 345 U. S. 591 state. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. DeltaSearch
-
against this same petitioner, and expressly refused to follow dicta by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Arthur v. CompagnieSearch
-
The Pinar Del Rio, 16 F.2d 984, aff'd, 277 U. S. 277 U.S. 151. A few years later, in Gambera v. BergotySearch
-
of this country, and who suffered injury in American territorial waters while serving on a Greek ship. In Kyriakos v. GoulandrisSearch
-
to injuries sustained while ashore in the United States by a Greek seaman employed by a Greek shipowner. In O'Neill v. CunardSearch
-
held that a British seaman injured on a British vessel on the high seas could not sue under the Jones Act. In Taylor v. AtlanticSearch
-
Sonnesen v. PanamaSearch
-
E.2d 569. Such a conflict can arise because Jones Act suits may be brought in state, as well as federal, courts. Engel v. DavenportSearch
-
See Plamals v. PinarSearch
-
For construction of these two sections see Patterson v. BarkSearch
-
U. S. 185 , and Strathearn S.S. Co. v. DillonSearch
-
Plamals v. PinarSearch
-
See the famous opinion of Mr. Justice Story in De Lovio v. BoitSearch
-
See Slater v. MexicanSearch
-
New York Central R. Co. v. ChisholmSearch
-
Sandberg v. McDonaldSearch
-
Carr v. FracisSearch
-
How. 183. For application of this doctrine in tort cases, see Bonsalem v. ByronSearch
-
Cain v. AlphaSearch
-
Grand Trunk R. Co. v. WrightSearch
-
Rainey v. NewSearch
-
See Uravic v. JarkaSearch
-
Shorter v. BermudaSearch
-
Gambera v. BergotySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial