Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Hess Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 18, 1960

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

61 entries 7 linked 54 unlinked
Show
  1. Carlisle Packing Co. Vs. Sandanger US Supreme Court · May 29, 1922
  2. Western Fuel Co. Vs. Garcia US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1921
  3. Levinson Vs. Deupree US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1953
  4. The Tungus Vs. Skovgaard US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1959
  5. United Pilots Assn. Vs. Halecki US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1959
  6. Atlantic Transport Co. Vs. Imbrovek US Supreme Court · May 25, 1914
  7. Huntington Vs. Attrill US Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1892
  8. Hess v. United
    Search
  9. States - 361 U.S. 314 (1960) U.S. Supreme Court Hess v. United
    Search
  10. States, 361 U.S. 314 (1960) Hess v. United
    Search
  11. Law may be invoked to recover for a maritime death in that State without constitutional inhibition. The Tungus v. Skovgaard
    Search
  12. Kermarec v. Compagnie
    Search
  13. U. S. 625 . Oregon would be required, therefore, to look to maritime law in deciding it. Chelentis v. Luckenbach
    Search
  14. not under admiralty's standards of duty, but under the substantive standards of the state law. United Pilots Assn. v. Halecki
    Search
  15. Klingseisen v. Costanzo
    Search
  16. Truelson v. Whitney
    Search
  17. Quinette v. Bisso
    Search
  18. Lee v. Pure
    Search
  19. Feige v. Hurley
    Search
  20. Holley v. the
    Search
  21. Garrett v. Moore-McCormack
    Search
  22. adjudication, not with reaching particular results in given cases. What was said last Term in deciding The Tungus v. Skovgaard
    Search
  23. Even Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen
    Search
  24. includes of necessity the power to determine when recovery shall be permitted and when it shall not. Cf. Caldarola v. Eckert
    Search
  25. and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join the opinion of the Court, but solely under compulsion of the Court's ruling in The Tungus v. Skovgaard
    Search
  26. of it has engendered among its original subscribers. See the various separate opinions in this case and in Goett v. Union
    Search
  27. territory of one political entity caused injury or death within a different political entity. Cf. Eastern Air Lines v. Union
    Search
  28. Byers v. Hardy
    Search
  29. Drefs v. Holman
    Search
  30. Rorvik v. North
    Search
  31. C. D. Johnson Lumber Corp. v. Hutchens
    Search
  32. Coomer v. Supple
    Search
  33. Myers v. Staub
    Search
  34. Tamm v. Sauset
    Search
  35. Warner v. Synnes
    Search
  36. Walters v. Dock
    Search
  37. law, The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199 , may be brought under a state wrongful death statute. In The Tungus v. Skovgaard
    Search
  38. this is the failure to use reasonable care in light of the attendant circumstances, that is, negligence. See Kermarec v. Compagnie
    Search
  39. Homan v. Broadway
    Search
  40. P.2d 349, 351, 11 P.2d 814, than that generally required of defendants in accident cases. See Camenzind v. Freeland
    Search
  41. federal supremacy in maritime affairs, and more particularly from the rule first unmistakably announced in Chelentis v. Luckenbach
    Search
  42. U. S. 384 . This rule was soon reiterated in two subsequent cases. The first was Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger
    Search
  43. Id. at 259 U. S. 259 . The second case was Robins Dry Dock Co. v. Dahl
    Search
  44. against his employer for a shipboard injury. Such a right of action existed in admiralty, Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek
    Search
  45. the issue was not again raised in litigation here for several decades. Garrett v. Moore-McCormack
    Search
  46. supremacy principle in this area. 317 U.S. at 317 U. S. 244 , n. 10. It remained for Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn
    Search
  47. was debarred from applying another rule. Finally, when, only last Term, the Court came to consider, in Kermarec v. Compagnie
    Search
  48. Page 361 U. S. 328 necessary to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties. Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger
    Search
  49. a jury trial. Whatever doubt may once have existed on that score was effectively laid to rest by Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn
    Search
  50. in the maritime law. 207 U.S. at 207 U. S. 406 . Mr. Justice McReynolds, in Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial