Citation network
The Tungus Vs. Skovgaard
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 24, 1959
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
-
U.S. 588 (1959) U.S. Supreme Court The Tungus v. SkovgaardSearch
-
U.S. 588 (1959) The Tungus v. SkovgaardSearch
-
within the class protected by the warranty of seaworthiness as developed by federal maritime law. Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. HawnSearch
-
Just v. ChambersSearch
-
Garrett v. Moore-McCormackSearch
-
death in state territorial waters is destructive of the uniformity of federal maritime law. Even Southern Pacific Co. v. JensenSearch
-
includes, of necessity, the power to determine when recovery shall be permitted and when it shall not. Cf. Caldarola v. EckertSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the pump. In reaching this conclusion, the court distinguished the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Broecker v. ArmstrongSearch
-
and obviously wise purpose of avoiding unnecessary resolution of constitutional issues. Railroad Commission of Texas v. PullmanSearch
-
Chicago v. FieldcrestSearch
-
Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlinSearch
-
Leiter Minerals, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 352 U. S. 220 . Cf. Thompson v. MagnoliaSearch
-
way, however, important and competing jurisdictional considerations would have to be thoroughly evaluated. See Propper v. ClarkSearch
-
Meredith v. WinterSearch
-
New Jersey law. Such a course is consistent with the practice that has been followed in the past. Estate of Spiegel v. CommissionerSearch
-
Ragan v. MerchantsSearch
-
General Box Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
See Davis v. DepartmentSearch
-
That this is the law has been generally understood by the other federal courts. Halecki v. UnitedSearch
-
Continental Casualty Co. v. TheSearch
-
Lee v. PureSearch
-
Klingseisen v. CostanzoSearch
-
Feige v. HurleySearch
-
O'Brien v. LuckenbachSearch
-
Quinette v. BissoSearch
-
Riley v. AgwilinesSearch
-
Kuhn v. CitySearch
-
O'Leary v. UnitedSearch
-
correct. The decedent's status is practically indistinguishable from that of the plaintiff in Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. HawnSearch
-
state procedure, from the state court while the case is held in the federal court. See my opinions in Sutton v. LeibSearch
-
U. S. 402 , 342 U. S. 412 -414 (concurring opinion), and Propper v. ClarkSearch
-
U. S. 472 , 337 U. S. 493 -497 (dissenting opinion), in connection with Railroad Comm'n v. PullmanSearch
-
Thompson v. MagnoliaSearch
-
U. S. 484 . Where an issue is solely concerned with diversity jurisdiction, as was the situation in Meredith v. WinterSearch
-
This opinion applies also to No. 56, United New York and New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Assn. v. HaleckiSearch
-
contractor, he was unquestionably one to whom the vessel owed the duty of seaworthiness. Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. HawnSearch
-
Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. HawnSearch
-
not the state law that incorporates a federal standard of care. This Court plainly declared in Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. HawnSearch
-
in ours, I think it unwarrantedly destructive of the uniformity of the federal maritime law, cf. Southern Pacific Co. v. JensenSearch
-
The federal duty need not be subject to this potential diversity of remedies. Cf. Carlisle Packing Co. v. SandangerSearch
-
that the federal law must look for an appropriate remedy to enforce its duties in a complete and rational way. Cf. Cox v. RothSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial