skip navigation


Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

Search for:
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"
This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Your query admiralty returned 708 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

1000 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This interlocutory appeal involves two questions: 1) whether we have jurisdiction of it. 2) whether an individual is precluded from being a
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Extends to vessels that have not been arrested within the district court's jurisdiction. Extends to vessels that have not been arrested within the court's jurisdiction. Millennium Seacarriers was formed to hold the capital stock of various vesselowning subsidiaries (collectively
978 OPINION/ORDER
Opinion filed 8/1/03 is vacated Filed: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02 1494 (CA 00 582 3) August 18. Line 2 of section III the word
943 OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction over its timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which is now owned by Rose Lee LLC (collectively
906 OPINION/ORDER
These consolidated interlocutory cross appeals before us pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (1993) present an interesting and important question of maritime law: whether state wrongful death and survival statutes are displaced by a federal maritime rule of decision concerning the remedies available for the death of a recreational boater occurring within state territorial waters. [fn1] which are explicitly excluded from the reach of the Death on the High Seas Act. The remedies at issue are loss of society. Was killed in a boating accident in the waters off Puerto Rico. Fashioned a federal common law rule applicable to cases involving the death of a non seaman in territorial waters under which future earnings and punitive damages are not recoverable but damages for loss of society or support are. Each party sought certification to appeal the portion of the court's ruling that was unfavorable. Our analysis of the Supreme Court's maritime wrongful death jurisprudence reveals that there is no federal substantive policy with which state wrongful death or survival statutes conflict here.
891 OPINION/ORDER
Perlmutter was on brief for appellant. Fox was on brief for appellee. By the time they extinguished the blaze the PROWLER was still afloat but burned almost to its gunnels. Panek also alleged that Concordia should have prevented the PROWLER from sinking by adequately securing it to the dock while it was still afloat. The case was tried to the district court with an advisory jury. It also found for Panek on his claims that Concordia was negligent and breached its contractual duty to secure the boat by 2 failing to remove the hull of the boat from the water when it was still floating. Was captioned
882 ADMIRALTY V. DALTON
852 OPINION/ORDER
332 at 34
839 DIESEL "REPOWER", INC. V. ISLANDER INVESTMENTS LTD. (11/9/2001, NO. 97-2591)

To
839 DIESEL "REPOWER", INC. V. ISLANDER INVESTMENTS LTD. (11/9/2001, NO. 97-2591)

To
839 OPINION/ORDER
To
819 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Admiralty law is considered one of the most complex areas of American law. We are now asked to resolve some of the problems arising from the Supreme Court's holding problems that the Court itself recognized by ruling upon two distinct questions that the Court expressly declined to decide. Ltd. will be defined. Calhoun: Is Yamaha a Cry by the Judiciary for Legislative Action in State Territorial Waters? We will affirm in part and reverse in part. Holding instead that federal maritime law must govern the standards by which Yamaha's liability will be evaluated. Natalie died when the Yamaha1
809 OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > In re Amtrak </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EB99F45A041054A388256FCB007AD2E1/$file/0316129.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Their boat was buffeted by harsh wind and waves. Nahid was tossed overboard. Monazzami washed up on an island and was stranded for three days before he was rescued. He was hospitalized for several days. While the couple was still in the foundering kayak. The Kiska conducted a brief Because we are reviewing a grant of summary judgment. The relevant facts are not in dispute for purposes of this appeal. 1 3450 TAGHADOMI v. At about seven o'clock that evening the search was called off. In subsequent amended complaints the estate and Nahid's parents were each added as separate plaintiffs and the United States was added as a defendant.2 The plaintiffs (collectively. They allege that the Coast Guard was negligent both in carrying out its rescue operation and in failing to contact local authorities who had access to better rescue equipment that might have been able to save the couple. Holding that the survivors' claims are not cognizable. Is liable in court only when it has waived its sovereign immunity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/96-6833.opa.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Amtrak </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1111p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are the Contacts Such That Application of American Law Would Be Reasonable? 41 a. Was seriously injured when she was sucked into the propellers of a scuba diving vessel. Plaintiff was a member of the crew of the vessel. Which was in St. We first find American maritime law potentially applicable in this case because the plaintiff is an American citizen. We consider whether applying American law is reasonable under the circumstances. Lucia might have in this case are undefined and. By this we do not mean that the vessel involved here was unlike those in traditional. The activity here was non traditional. Which as we explain is an important consideration in non shipping contexts. One of the defendants is a corporation organized under the laws of St. Was registered in St. Are so threatened or so strong that America’s interests must be ignored. The significance of plaintiff’s American allegiance is an especially important factor. The relevance of the plaintiff’s having entered into her employment contract in the United States is also enhanced. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021494A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We now conclude that the government's waiver of sovereign immunity reflected in the Suits in Admiralty Act is subject to an implied exception similar to the discretionary function exception contained within the Federal Tort Claims Act. I. The relevant facts are set out in detail in the panel's opinion. We will only briefly recount them here. The plaintiffs were riding two jet skis on the Ohio River in the vicinity of the Robert C. The plaintiffs were injured when they went over the gates and dropped approximately twenty five feet to the water below. There were several warning signs on the upstream side of the dam. Their evidence indicated that the signs were difficult to see from the river. Alleging that the government had a duty to warn about the dangers of the dam and that the signs in place were inadequate to satisfy this duty. Arguing that it was protected by an implied discretionary function exception to the SIAA's waiver of sovereign immunity. The government also moved for summary judgment on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims on the grounds that it had no duty to warn about the dam and that the warnings it provided were. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041816p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we believe the District Court should have determined whether it had personal jurisdiction before ruling on Sinochem's forum non conveniens motion. An American company that is not a party to this action. The coils were required to be loaded for shipment to China by April 30. Triorient was required to submit a valid bill of lading stating that the coils had been loaded on or before April 30. To transport the steel coils to China.1 1 The Vessel was chartered from MISC to Progress Bulk Carriers. Was issued. On the back of the bill of lading were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/99-3393.htm">99-3393 -- COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE CO. V. SEA HARVEST SEAFOOD CO. -- 06/11/2001<BR></A><BR> 000 pounds of decomposed frozen shrimp. <p> <p> <u> </u>This appeal is taken from an order granting summary judgment to Plaintiff Appellee Commercial Union Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2369.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A.</U> were on brief. Welte P.A.</U> was on brief. P.A.</U> were on brief. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2000/99-4017.man.html">BELUGA HOLDING, LTD. V. COMMERCE CAPITAL CORP. (5/24/2000, NO. 99-4017)<BR></A><BR> We are presented with a final judgment within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994) and therefore have jurisdiction over this appeal.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/95-2272.opa.html">BEISWENGER ENTER. CORP. V. CARLETTA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Beiswenger Enter. Contending that the amended stipulations filed by the damage claimants are inadequate. Parasailing is a recreational boating activity in which the riders. Are pulled aloft by a parachute. BEC asserted that it was not at fault for the accident. Has the right to litigate the issue of whether it is entitled to limit its liability under the provisions of the Limitation of Liability Act. That the Petitioner has the right to have this Court determine the value of the M/V Skyrider Express immediately following the incident at issue. That the Respondent/Claimants will not seek a determination of the issues set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) above in any state court. Rulings or judgments of any state court might have on those issues.<p> <p> 4. That the Respondent/Claimants will not seek to enforce any judgment rendered in any state court. In the event this Court determines that the Petitioner is entitled to limit its liability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun16/03-30069-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal is by Paul C. Karim was brought to New Orleans upon being injured but was deported to Bangladesh prior to the judgment registry. in his favor being paid into the district court's At issue is whether. I. The underlying litigation involving Karim and Finch Shipping Company is addressed in Karim v. While a seaman AFFIRMED. that extensive litigation are relevant. aboard a vessel owned by Finch. Karim (a Bangladeshi national) was injured on the vessel while it was off the coast of Bermuda. He was debarked in New Orleans. 2 Karim's claims were presented by Miniclier in the limitation of liability proceeding filed by Finch in 1996. Miniclier's percentage was to be calculated based on the gross recovery that is. Before expenses were deducted. Karim was to be responsible for court costs and other expenses. Miniclier was permitted to advance them. The damages were: 3 $13. Long before his judgment was affirmed. Are protected. That will be charged against [Karim's] judgment. As well as the net amount that will be conveyed to [Karim] after all costs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2000/99-4017.man.html">BELUGA HOLDING, LTD. V. COMMERCE CAPITAL CORP. (5/24/2000, NO. 99-4017)<BR></A><BR> We are presented with a final judgment within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994) and therefore have jurisdiction over this appeal.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/95-2272.opa.html">BEISWENGER ENTER. CORP. V. CARLETTA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Beiswenger Enter. Contending that the amended stipulations filed by the damage claimants are inadequate. Parasailing is a recreational boating activity in which the riders. Are pulled aloft by a parachute. BEC asserted that it was not at fault for the accident. Has the right to litigate the issue of whether it is entitled to limit its liability under the provisions of the Limitation of Liability Act. That the Petitioner has the right to have this Court determine the value of the M/V Skyrider Express immediately following the incident at issue. That the Respondent/Claimants will not seek a determination of the issues set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) above in any state court. Rulings or judgments of any state court might have on those issues.<p> <p> 4. That the Respondent/Claimants will not seek to enforce any judgment rendered in any state court. In the event this Court determines that the Petitioner is entitled to limit its liability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312820.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts. All in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count 14).1 Paragraphs 2 and 3 The unlawful activities whose proceeds were concealed or promoted were mail fraud. Also charged with conspiracy in the indictment were John Mamone. That charge was dismissed before trial. Is not relevant to this appeal. 2 1 of Count 14 explained that the purposes and objects of the conspiracy were: (a) to conduct financial transactions involving the proceeds of mail and wire fraud. Silvestri was charged in 30 substantive counts with money laundering. The essential facts in this complex fraud case are these. Buccinna and Weiss were also charged in the same substantive counts. Was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment. 3 3 2 opportunities. Tang was left with a small clerical staff. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952272.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that the amended stipulations filed by the damage claimants are inadequate. Parasailing is a recreational boating activity in which the riders. Are pulled aloft by a parachute. BEC asserted that it was not at fault for the accident. Myers was also survived by two other minor children: George Edward Myers. Carter (who was later renamed Tiffany Myers). Beiswenger is the sole officer and shareholder of BEC. 73 L.Ed. 613 (1929) (holding that the stockholders of a corporation owning a vessel are entitled to invoke the Limitation Act). Has the right to litigate the issue of whether it is entitled to limit its liability under the provisions of the Limitation of Liability Act. That the Petitioner has the right to have this Court determine the value of the M/V Skyrider Express immediately following the incident at issue. That the Respondent/Claimants will not seek a determination of the issues set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) above in any state court. Rulings or judgments of any state court might have on those issues. 4. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2637_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiff was playing a slot machine when the stool she was leaning against collapsed and she fell. The boat was stationary when the accident occurred rather than rocking back and forth in the wash of a passing boat. The defendant moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that it was not within the admiralty jurisdiction. There would be no argument that the plaintiff's claim was an admiralty claim. Since the boat was moored indefinitely. An accident occurring on landfill adjacent to navigable waters is not within the admiralty jurisdiction unless (as we'll see) the accident involved the boat's colliding with or otherwise damaging something on the land. The accident in our case had nothing to do with the fact that the casino was on a boat afloat on a navigable stream rather than sitting on dry land. So whatever distinctive rules of liability admiralty courts have developed would be no better suited. There is. Common sense appeal to the district court's ruling that the suit is not within the admiralty jurisdiction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315321.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thus is strictly liable for crew member assaults on passengers. The jury trial focused on whether the plaintiff consented or was sexually battered by the crew member. The district court sua sponte raised an entirely new issue regarding which of the four defendants actually employed the errant crew member and whether that employer was a common carrier. Concluding that the plaintiff failed to prove any single defendant was both a common carrier and the employer of the crew member Honorable Richard Mills. Sitting by designation. 2 * and therefore that no defendant was liable for the crew member's assault. A cruise line is strictly liable for crew member assaults on passengers during the cruise. Inc. is the operator of the M/V ZENITH. Zenith Shipping Corporation is the owner of the vessel. Contending that they are not liable for Aydin's intentional misconduct. Defendants argued that they are liable (1) only for their own breach of reasonable care under the circumstances and (2) only for their employees' intentional conduct while acting within the scope of their employment and in furtherance of the defendants' business purposes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-6200.opa.html">MARINE COATINGS OF AL. V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Marine Coatings of Al. v. Contending that it was substantially justified in contesting the subcontractor's claim. It will be helpful to review the events surrounding the enactment of the statute.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1059.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kaplan and The Kaplan/Bond Group were on brief for appellants. Dana & Gould were on brief for appellee. The district court held that the remedies were preempted. Discerning the law in this area is far from easy. We are constrained to reverse in part and to remand for further proceedings. The basic facts of the case are not in dispute. The captain and owner 2 2 were fined a total of $30. 000 of which was to be available to compensate individuals. The claimants in the present appeal are a group of shellfish dealers who allege severe economic losses arising from the two week hiatus in shellfishing activities. Which held that compensation for economic losses standing alone is unavailable in admiralty cases. The dealers assert that their businesses were injured 4 4 when the World Prodigy spill prevented local fishermen from harvesting shellfish in Narragansett Bay and thereby precluded the dealers from purchasing the shellfish and reselling them to restaurants and other buyers. The dealers' maritime law claims are thus purely for economic losses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-6200.opa.html">MARINE COATINGS OF AL. V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Marine Coatings of Al. v. Contending that it was substantially justified in contesting the subcontractor's claim. It will be helpful to review the events surrounding the enactment of the statute.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1240.html">DALTON V. SOUTHWEST MARINE<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/98-5704.man.html">SHULTZ V. FLORIDA KEYS DIVE CTR. (8/30/2000, NO. 98-5704)<BR></A><BR> Concluding that the district court correctly held that the liability release is not invalidated by an admiralty statute. We conclude that it is not invalidated by the admiralty common law.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/98-5704.man.html">SHULTZ V. FLORIDA KEYS DIVE CTR. (8/30/2000, NO. 98-5704)<BR></A><BR> Concluding that the district court correctly held that the liability release is not invalidated by an admiralty statute. We conclude that it is not invalidated by the admiralty common law.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/004205.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the District Court's judgment in favor of the defendants. Ltd. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/99-14019.man.html">BUNGE CORP. V. FREEPORT MARINE REPAIR (1/30/2001, NO. 99-14019)<BR></A><BR> FACTS</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19985704.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the district court correctly held that the liability release is not invalidated by an admiralty statute. We conclude that it is not invalidated by the admiralty common law. The facts are as follows: The day before her dive. Because it was waiting for other divers still in the water to reboard. Patricia Shultz became unconscious before she was picked up by a boat. Unless the liability release signed by Patricia Shultz is invalidated under either 46 U.S.C. app. § 183c(a) or admiralty common law. The release is unquestionably valid and bars plaintiff's claim. 46 U.S.C. app. § 183c(a) provides: It shall be unlawful for the manager. Or agreement are declared to be against public policy and shall be null and void and of no effect. There are no federal appellate cases. The release was upheld as not meeting the requirements of § 183c(a) in the case at bar and in Cutchin v. The one case holding that § 183c(a) did apply to invalidate a scuba diving liability release involved a scuba diver who was struck by the propeller of another boat. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DFF1A2A891123E3B88256A6A0056891E/$file/9956865.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court determined that it did not have admiralty jurisdiction but nonetheless adjudicated both the federal admiralty claims and a supplemental state law claim in favor of Marlineer. The district court did not have supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The entire case should have been dismissed on purely jurisdictional grounds. Told Littell that the asking price for the Teddy Bear was $850. Littell told Tate that he was interested. That he could not complete the transaction right away because his financial situation was uncertain. Littell handed over a deposit of twenty dollars but no other terms were agreed upon at that time. The findings of fact and conclusions of law include two pages of legal analysis titled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/99-14019.man.html">BUNGE CORP. V. FREEPORT MARINE REPAIR (1/30/2001, NO. 99-14019)<BR></A><BR> FACTS</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19985704.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the district court correctly held that the liability release is not invalidated by an admiralty statute. We conclude that it is not invalidated by the admiralty common law. The facts are as follows: The day before her dive. Because it was waiting for other divers still in the water to reboard. Patricia Shultz became unconscious before she was picked up by a boat. Unless the liability release signed by Patricia Shultz is invalidated under either 46 U.S.C. app. § 183c(a) or admiralty common law. The release is unquestionably valid and bars plaintiff's claim. 46 U.S.C. app. § 183c(a) provides: It shall be unlawful for the manager. Or agreement are declared to be against public policy and shall be null and void and of no effect. There are no federal appellate cases. The release was upheld as not meeting the requirements of § 183c(a) in the case at bar and in Cutchin v. The one case holding that § 183c(a) did apply to invalidate a scuba diving liability release involved a scuba diver who was struck by the propeller of another boat. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/42FF379465E3964588256E5A00707B91/$file/9956865.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court determined that it did not have admiralty jurisdiction but nonetheless adjudicated both the federal admiralty claims and a supplemental state law claim in favor of Marlineer. The district court did not have supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The entire case should have been dismissed on purely jurisdictional grounds. Told Littell that the asking price for the Teddy Bear was $850. Littell told Tate that he was interested. That he could not complete the transaction right away because his financial situation was uncertain. Littell handed over a deposit of twenty dollars but no other terms were agreed upon at that time. The findings of fact and conclusions of law include two pages of legal analysis titled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914019.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. FACTS Freeport manufactured and owned a casino vessel ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914019.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. FACTS Freeport manufactured and owned a casino vessel ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-31036.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances * We dismiss this interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction. 1. The plaintiff must have brought his claim in admiralty. See id. § 1292(a)(3) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/80D30AD0ABD8D5A7882572B5005A498F/$file/0535323.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that Kelly Ryan is not entitled to indemnity from Royal under the Marine Coverage Endorsement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002a/014101.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (said names being fictitious as their identities are presently unknown). (said names being fictitious as their identities are presently unknown) Christian Joseph Gibbs. This minimum one year time bar is tolled. The Gibbses and Carnival disagree as to when (or whether) Suzanne Gibbs was appointed guardian ad litem of Christian in order to serve as his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972639.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Emery was hurt while sandblasting inside a ship. Which is extremely heavy and physically demanding labor. He was concerned about the possibility of reinjury. 2 With return to his old job thus precluded. For which medication was unnecessary. Most notably when his arm was fully extended. Emery felt that his symptoms were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982368.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The sole issue on appeal is whether we should construe or extend the United States Supreme Court's decision in Moragne v. He was actually employed by Tidewater Temps but worked on behalf of Mid Atlantic Coastings (MidAtlantic). Which was used to load sand for sandblasting. The crane operator's negligence and Norfolk's use of an inadequate communication signaling system were the reasons for her son's death. The Court noted that at common law there was no civil action for an injury that resulted in death and that English maritime law also had no cause of action for wrongful death on the high seas. The Court concluded that because it is now established that in the courts of the United States no action at law can be maintained for [wrongful death] in the absence of a statute giving the right. We are forced to the conclusion that no such action will lie in the courts of the United States under the general maritime law. Which originally was an obscure and rarely used cause of action for which many state wrongful death statutes did not account. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1473.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bates was on brief for the Ellenwoods. Was on brief for the State of Maine. McGill were on brief for Exxon Shipping Company. Was removed from his position as chief engineer of another Exxon oil tanker. Relying primarily on the company's previous written policy that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/08FBB64A028909358825707E004BBBC9/$file/0356547.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and replaced by the amended opinion filed concurrently with this order. The petition for panel rehearing is denied. The vessels were arrested pursuant to maritime procedure. The district court determined that in rem jurisdiction was lost because there was no res against which to enforce an eventual in rem judgment. The district court held that it was powerless to order the Owners to reinstate the security. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Original District Court Action Ventura Packers is a corporation that provides stevedoring services in Ventura. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991018.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. I. UHP is a company that cleans tanks and holds for ocean vessels with ultra high pressure water jets. Was moored at Cargill South Terminal in Chesapeake. The pump and hoses used to operate the ballast tank were owned by UHP. Chisholm was aboard the ULTRAMAX as a first assistant engineer. As UHP employees were preparing to begin cleaning one of the ballast tanks. The loose hose veered and struck Chisholm who was standing approximately 10 to 15 feet away from the ballast tank. This amount was $200. This exact amount was then tendered by UHP to Sealift as indemnity on or about December 11. The district court concluded that Chisholm did not have a right to a jury trial but impaneled a jury anyway to function as an advisory body.1 See id. at 929 30. The admiralty claim pro 1 The fact that the district court ruled that Chisholm did not have a right to a jury because he presented no viable negligence claim rebuts the dissent's assertion that UHP's liability was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1827.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. The district court's order striking appellant's claim for failure to answer interrogatories was premature. One of the vehicles involved was a 1987 BMW operated by claimant appellant John Tenaglia. The BMW and the cash 1The interrogatories were served with the complaint pursuant to Adm. Which provides in pertinent part: The claimant of property that is the subject of an action in rem shall file a claim within 10 days after process has been executed . . . . In actions in rem interrogatories may be so served without leave of court. 3 were declared forfeit. He is precluded from relying on the rule at this juncture. The government asserts that Civil Rule 37 is inapposite in respect to interrogatories propounded pursuant to Adm. The district court's order is supportable. That this is a distinction bereft of any meaningful difference. Although in many cases the upshot of dismissal is more grievous than the upshot of an order to strike. Dismissal and the striking of a claim are quintessentially synonymous in the forfeiture context. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1674p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is before this court on appeal from the district court's order exonerating the Consolidation Coal Co. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200316575.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A Cayman Islands corporation whose sole enterprise is the upkeep and management of the vessel M/V Sweet Pea ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/014144.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The ship was returning home fully loaded with seventy cages of clams. The Beth Dee Bob was owned by PMD Enterprises. Which was transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and then consolidated with the wrongful death suit. McLaughlin filed a separate wrongful death action against Peter Lamonica alleging that his negligence was the cause of Captain McLaughlin's death. This action was consolidated with the limitation action and the wrongful death action against Cape May Foods. The case was assigned to a magistrate judge. Claiming that shipowners were barred from suing employees for negligence under the Jones Act and the Federal Employers' Liability Act. The District Court found that there were genuine issues of fact regarding the cause of the ship's sinking. Are generally not appealable except as interlocutory appeals under 28 U.S.C. 584 (3d Cir. 1995) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/11/991346P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. 1 This is a federal admiralty case involving an underlying Jones Act personal injury action brought in Illinois state court by James F. Lewis & Clark argues that the district court abused its discretion in dissolving its restraining order and staying the federal admiralty action because (1) the federal district court has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate Lewis & Clark's right to exoneration from or limitation of liability and (2) Claimant's Illinois state court action was properly enjoined under the circumstances of the present case. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Jurisdiction in the court of appeals is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background Lewis & Clark is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in Granite City. Lewis & Clark was the owner or. Claimant was purportedly injured while working for Lewis & Clark as a deckhand aboard the M/V KAREN MICHELLE. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021058.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The shippers have appealed. Are international metal traders. Both are incorporated in Switzerland and both are engaged primarily in the purchase and sale of aluminum. In order to have the aluminum transported to the United States. ICTS is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1300p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding that plaintiff Elizabeth Fedorczyk did not provide any evidence to support her claim that Royal Caribbean's failure to provide adequate abrasive strips in its bathtub was the proximate cause of her injuries. Which is an essential element of the tort of negligence. We will affirm the June 26. I. The following facts are not disputed. The tub in her cabin was about five and one half feet long and two feet. Fedorczyk has no recollection whether her feet were on or off the abrasive strips at the time of her fall. The tub was also equipped with a grab rail which Fedorczyk made a failed attempt to reach when she fell. She re entered the tub and discovered that there was sufficient space between the abrasive strips so that her feet could just fit in between them. She does not know where her feet were at the time of the accident. There were seven as opposed to four abrasive strips. This standard specifies that for any surface that is textured or treated with appliques. There is no definite way of preventing slips altogether. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/46A86B6AEC9F810488256A41005B4515/$file/9955487.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held there was no admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 over the disputed marine insurance policy because La Reunion failed to prove that the insurance contract was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D85DBFEC9FD4BC788256E5A00707D3D/$file/9735191.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While the decision was pending. Judge Schroeder was drawn to replace him. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of a $5 billion punitive damages award arising out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This is not a case about befouling the environment. This is a case about commercial fishing. The jury was specifically instructed that it could not award damages for environmental harm. The reason is that under a stipulation with the United States and Alaska. Exxon had already been punished for environmental harm.1 The verdict in this case was for damage to economic expectations for commercial fishermen. The plaintiffs here were almost entirely compensated for their damages years ago. The punitive damages at issue were awarded to punish Exxon. Among the issues are whether punitive damages should have been barred as a matter of law and whether the award was excessive. Important aspects of this opinion are controlled by a 1 See Eyak Native Village v. Inc. 3 Facts Bligh Island and Bligh Reef have been known to navigators for a long time. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3C2CBD69E6E2C18388256AFD001790CB/$file/9735191.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While the decision was pending. Judge Schroeder was drawn to replace him. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of a $5 billion punitive damages award arising out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This is not a case about befouling the environment. This is a case about commercial fishing. The jury was specifically instructed that it could not award damages for environmental harm. The reason is that under a stipulation with the United States and Alaska. Exxon had already been punished for environmental harm.1 The verdict in this case was for damage to economic expectations for commercial fishermen. The plaintiffs here were almost entirely compensated for their damages years ago. The punitive damages at issue were awarded to punish Exxon. Among the issues are whether punitive damages should have been barred as a matter of law and whether the award was excessive. Important aspects of this opinion are controlled by a 1 See Eyak Native Village v. Inc. 3 Facts Bligh Island and Bligh Reef have been known to navigators for a long time. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F547F6A71410AAC888256E5A00707B19/$file/9955487.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held there was no admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 over the disputed marine insurance policy because La Reunion failed to prove that the insurance contract was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1791.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants. <P> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1136.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief for appellant. Allen & Snyder were on brief for appellees. Was fraudulently induced to discharge six consignments of frozen scallops. The discharged scallops were seized by appellees Fleet National Bank and Cooper ative Centrale Raiffeisen Boerenleenbank B.A. (hereinafter. Glouces 1An order bill of lading is a negotiable instrument. Issued by the carrier to the shipper at the time goods are loaded aboard ship. As documentary evidence of title to those goods. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb98/96-5278.opn.html">INBESA AM., INC. V. M/V ANGLIA (2/2/1998, NO. 96-5278)<BR></A><BR> The district court held that a contract between Inbesa and the charterer of <U>in rem</U> appellant M/V <EM>Anglia</EM> was wholly maritime. Contends that the contract is not subject to admiralty jurisdiction because the contract covers a variety of non maritime services. We must first establish whether we have admiralty jurisdiction over the contract from which the lien is purported to arise. <U>See. The test we apply in deciding whether the subject matter of a contract is necessary to the operation. Or management of a ship is a test of reasonableness. <EM> </EM>the<EM> Anglia</EM> argues that a significant portion of the services provided by Inbesa under the contract were non </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AA1F55BD132160858825705A000016EA/$file/0356547.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The vessels were arrested pursuant to maritime procedure. The district court determined that in rem jurisdiction was lost because there was no res against which to enforce an eventual in rem judgment. The district court held that it was powerless to order the Owners to reinstate the security. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Original District Court Action Ventura Packers is a corporation that provides stevedoring services in Ventura. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb98/96-5278.opn.html">INBESA AM., INC. V. M/V ANGLIA (2/2/1998, NO. 96-5278)<BR></A><BR> The district court held that a contract between Inbesa and the charterer of <U>in rem</U> appellant M/V <EM>Anglia</EM> was wholly maritime. Contends that the contract is not subject to admiralty jurisdiction because the contract covers a variety of non maritime services. We must first establish whether we have admiralty jurisdiction over the contract from which the lien is purported to arise. <U>See. The test we apply in deciding whether the subject matter of a contract is necessary to the operation. Or management of a ship is a test of reasonableness. <EM> </EM>the<EM> Anglia</EM> argues that a significant portion of the services provided by Inbesa under the contract were non </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1E1C3AFF936829B4882572F1007D223B/$file/0535916.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robert Lesman1 is the owner and captain of the Sunset Charge and was Gruver's direct supervisor during the time Gruver worked on the boat. Gruver was owed some wages. While the check was in transit. Gruver demanded the money and warned that he would hurt Lesman and damage the Sunset Charge if he was not paid. Gruver again called Lesman and left a message threatening Lesman and his property if the full amount of wages owed to him was not paid. Gruver was lying in his bunk on the Adventurous. Lesman claims he was attempting to give Gruver a check for the remainder of his wages and that Gruver attacked him. Lesman eventually was arrested. Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1183.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bird & Hestres were on brief for appellants. Grafam & Lausell were on brief for appellees. The facts are undisputed. General Background </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/94-3370.opa.html">ALDERMAN V. PACIFIC NORTHERN VICTOR, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Alderman v. Was docked in navigable waters in southern Florida where it was undergoing a conversion from an oil drilling vessel to a fish processing vessel. Was assisting in the installation of an elevator aboard the Northern Victor. The cause was removed to federal court based upon the diversity of the parties and upon admiralty jurisdiction. The district court determined that this was a maritime tort.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2003/02-14258.opn.html">ANDERSON V. UNITED STATES (1/7/2003, NO. 02-14258)<BR></A><BR> He asserts that (1) his claim against the United States did not arise in admiralty and thus was properly brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/98-5034.man.html">SEA LANE BAHAMAS LTD. V. EUROPA CRUISES CORP. (9/17/1999, NO. 98-5034)<BR></A><BR> Alleging that Europa Cruise Line's redelivery of the Europa Jet was in breach of the charter agreement. Before an answer was filed. Defendants raised the defense that Sea Lane was not the real party in interest. Sea Lane maintains that it is the registered owner of the vessel and that it retained legal title to the vessel while transferring only </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2003/02-14258.opn.html">ANDERSON V. UNITED STATES (1/7/2003, NO. 02-14258)<BR></A><BR> He asserts that (1) his claim against the United States did not arise in admiralty and thus was properly brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/98-5034.man.html">SEA LANE BAHAMAS LTD. V. EUROPA CRUISES CORP. (9/17/1999, NO. 98-5034)<BR></A><BR> Alleging that Europa Cruise Line's redelivery of the Europa Jet was in breach of the charter agreement. Before an answer was filed. Defendants raised the defense that Sea Lane was not the real party in interest. Sea Lane maintains that it is the registered owner of the vessel and that it retained legal title to the vessel while transferring only </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/94-3370.opa.html">ALDERMAN V. PACIFIC NORTHERN VICTOR, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Alderman v. Was docked in navigable waters in southern Florida where it was undergoing a conversion from an oil drilling vessel to a fish processing vessel. Was assisting in the installation of an elevator aboard the Northern Victor. The cause was removed to federal court based upon the diversity of the parties and upon admiralty jurisdiction. The district court determined that this was a maritime tort.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992035.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which were lost off the shores of present day Virginia in 1750 and 1802 respectively. LA GALGA and JUNO are covered by the 1902 Treaty of Friendship and General Relations between the United States and Spain. The reciprocal immunities established by this treaty are essential to protecting United States shipwrecks and military gravesites. I. LA GALGA ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-4093.man.html">DIETRICH V. KEY BANK<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dietrich v. 46 U.S.C.A. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1413.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Miranda Gutierrez and Figueroa Morales & Chaves Caraballo Law Offices were on brief for appellant. Rodriguez Marxuach and Goldman Antonetti Ferraiuoli & Axtmayer were on brief for appellee. I Jurisdiction Burgos argues that the district court did not have jurisdiction to enter a judgment against him. He adds that there was no diversity jurisdiction. 252 (1868) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-4093.man.html">DIETRICH V. KEY BANK<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dietrich v. 46 U.S.C.A. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2908.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff appellant Russell Scott ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-11778.opn.html">ALL UNDERWRITERS V. WEISBERG (8/18/2000, NO. 99-11778)<BR></A><BR> Underwriters filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida seeking to have the contract deemed void </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971685.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree and hold that when the predominant purpose of a maritime or land based contract is the rendering of services rather than the furnishing of goods. The U.C.C. is inapplicable. Attached to both GE Quotations were GE's terms and conditions. Were to govern the contract. Good metal was removed from the rotor. It was undisputed. Judgment as a matter of law is proper </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-11778.opn.html">ALL UNDERWRITERS V. WEISBERG (8/18/2000, NO. 99-11778)<BR></A><BR> Underwriters filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida seeking to have the contract deemed void </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/95-2418.opa.html">SUZUKI OF ORANGE PARK V. SHUBERT<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Suzuki of Orange Park v. FACTS<p> <p> Suzuki is a Florida corporation engaged primarily in the business of selling recreational watercraft. It is unknown whether Mann and Nemic pushed Shubert. The first watercraft was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992519.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We are asked to review the district court's grant of a motion for voluntary dismissal made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Because we are confident that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Allen Flath was seriously injured in a jet ski accident that occurred on Lake Murray in Lexington County. The Flaths alleged negligence and strict liability causes of action in their complaint and indicated that their suit was initiated in federal court on the basis of federal admiralty jurisdiction within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h). The Flaths alleged that Lake Murray was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3882.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Between 1916 and 1928 the Rosinco the first diesel electric vessel berthed in Chicago was one of the largest (at 95 feet and 82 gross tons) and most opulent yachts on the Great Lakes. Paul Ehorn was arrested in October 1998 after he retrieved one of its portholes. States own two categories of vessels: those that have become </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept95/94-6650.opa.html">MOREWITZ V. WEST OF ENG. SHIP OWNERS MUTUAL PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY ASSOC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morewitz v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1850.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom McConnell Valdes was on brief. With whom Bird Bird and Hestres was on brief. Wakefield & Spedale were on brief. Were allowed to intervene. Suit was originally brought in rem against the vessel. Were also held liable on two of the judgments (for the original charterer and another intervening charterer). The proceeds of the sale are insufficient to satisfy even these four successful claims. Were not allowed to intervene. Arguing that the district court's entry of judgment against them is in error. They argue that the two charterers were awarded excessive damages. These four appeals were consolidated. I. The underlying facts are not now in dispute. The M/V VASILIA EXPRESS was owned by Royal United Shipping. Was registered in the West Indies. During this litigation it was established that. The vessel was actually 1. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7BA2CC81D0DBF56688256D7200732939/$file/0235364.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We consider the apportionment of a salvage award that was given to participating crew members but not to the owner of the salving vessel. Some have traced the right back to the ancient Rhodians. CROWLEY MARINE SERVICES and who are thought by some to be the earliest culture to have devised a system of maritime law.2 The manuscript known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1932.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant United States. Was on brief for defendants. 2 TORRUELLA. This is an appeal by the Government from an order entered by the District Court for the District of Maine dismissing its in rem complaint for forfeiture of certain real property consisting of 400 acres. 1 under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(6).2 The complaint 1 Although the record is not entirely clear. The Government asserts that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2141.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Final judgment was entered on November 22. An appeal was taken but. That the Athens St. property was used for parking in connection with the operation of the commercial building throughout the period of Rosengard's ownership. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19959425.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge Kravitch was in regular active service when this matter was originally submitted but has taken senior status effective January 1. The court held that the Topgallant to Ambassador assignment was valid. 000 in unpaid freights is due under the contract. Claiming that the fact that Ambassador is the assignee of the right to collect on a shipping contract rather than an original party to the contract deprived the district court of admiralty jurisdiction. DISCUSSION The Supreme Court and this court have held that the nature of the disputed contract. Is the crucial inquiry in determining whether a contract is in admiralty. The Court noted that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept95/94-6650.opa.html">MOREWITZ V. WEST OF ENG. SHIP OWNERS MUTUAL PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY ASSOC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morewitz v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19943370.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was docked in navigable waters in southern Florida where it was undergoing a conversion from an oil drilling vessel to a fish processing vessel. Was assisting in the installation of an elevator aboard the Northern Victor. Sitting by designation. cause was removed to federal court based upon the diversity of the parties and upon admiralty jurisdiction. 1 the district court determined that this was a maritime tort. Holding that the suit was time barred because it had not been filed within the applicable three year statute of limitations.2 Subsequent to that decision. The issue before us is a simple one. If the tort is governed by maritime law. Discussion Whether substantive admiralty law applies is a question of law that we review de novo.3 To determine whether substantive If. It is governed by Florida law. The test for admiralty tort jurisdiction was simple. It became apparent that this test was no longer sufficient. The activity from which the claim arises must satisfy a location test and it must have sufficient connection with maritime activity.8 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1B6E7B2E95868EB188256D9E007B9B2F/$file/0235364.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2003 is hereby amended as follows: 1. Delete the two sentences reading: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/95-2418.opa.html">SUZUKI OF ORANGE PARK V. SHUBERT<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Suzuki of Orange Park v. FACTS<p> <p> Suzuki is a Florida corporation engaged primarily in the business of selling recreational watercraft. It is unknown whether Mann and Nemic pushed Shubert. The first watercraft was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1995/95a1036p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to decide. No such forfeiture has occurred and we will thus affirm the district court's judgment. Francis Deisler is a seaman who is a member of International Union of Operating Engineers. Deisler injured his back while he was working on a dredge and he was disabled for about six months. While Deisler was working as a dredgeman for another boating company. That application included the following question: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954765.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The M/V INAGUA TANIA is an ocean going Senior Circuit Judge. Freighter of Honduran registry whose crew was composed of aliens from Central and South America. The vessel was arrested on March 1. At the time of the arrest the vessel was engaged in the carriage of international trade for hire. * It was arrested in Port Everglades Honorable Gerard L. Sitting by designation. but shortly after the arrest a substitute custodian was placed in charge and the vessel was moved to an offshore anchorage. The vessel had been on charter and was scheduled to commence a new charter two days after its arrest. The shipowner's motion for relief was heard by a Magistrate Judge who set a release bond in the approximate amount of $300. The bond was to be for the benefit of Isbrandtsen alone. Isbrandtsen sought an immediate sale of the vessel claiming that it was a wasting asset. (Actually the greatest cause of waste The owner was the substantial cost of the substitute custodian.) opposed this application advising the Court that it was attempting to obtain security in accordance with the Court's order and that it was also attempting to settle the claims of Isbrandtsen. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981962.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was a secretary at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for a short time in 1972. During several public appearances and on a world wide web site Liddy stated that the burglars' objective during the Watergate break in was to determine whether the Democrats possessed information embarrassing to John Dean.1 More specifically. Liddy asserted that the burglars were seeking a compromising photograph of Dean's fiance that was located in Wells's desk among several photographs that were used to offer prostitution services to outof town guests. The district court determined that Wells was an involuntary public figure who could not prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Because we determine that Wells is not a public figure for purposes of the ongoing public debate regarding Watergate and we also conclude that Louisiana law does not apply to two of Wells's defamation counts. We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 John Dean was legal counsel to President Richard M. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/03-7023.htm">03-7023 -- MAGNOLIA MARINE TRANSPORT CO. V. STATE OF OKLAHOMA -- 05/03/2004<BR></A><BR> An order denying a motion to dismiss on the basis of state sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. <em>P.R. Was pushing two empty barges up the Arkansas River in Oklahoma. While Captain Dedmon was unconscious. The parties' legal actions were consolidated in federal district court in Oklahoma. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972205.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 2 the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/95-9425.opa.html">AMBASSADOR FACTORS V. RHEIN-, MAAS-, UND SEE- SCHIFFAHRTSKONTOR<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Ambassador Factors v. The court held that the Topgallant to Ambassador assignment was valid.<p> According to the complaint in the instant proceeding. 000 in unpaid freights is due under the contract. Claiming that the fact that Ambassador is the assignee of the right to collect on a shipping contract </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/001415P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Webber moved to dissolve the injunction on the grounds that the federal jurisdiction granted by 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) is limited by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1693.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mahoney and Miller were on brief for appellees. All Trawl is a Massachusetts commercial fishing corporation which owns the Corey Pride and Anderson is All Trawl's president. James Corey is identified in Southworth's complaint as either an agent or principal of All Trawl. Shortly after the engine was installed on the vessel by a Southworth employee. A fire broke out on the Corey Pride while it was out at sea on a fishing expedition. Claiming that the fire was caused by defective engine parts and faulty installation. An additional claim for negligence was later asserted at trial. Southworth's claims against Anderson and James Corey were dismissed without objection prior to trial. James Corey was out of the case altogether and Anderson continued only as a counterclaimant. The remaining claims were tried in December 1990 before a magistrate judge by consent of the parties. 28 U.S.C. 636(c). The magistrate judge found that the fire was caused by a defective makeshift oil pressure line connected to the engine and installed by Southworth's agent. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2025.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. Was sent to sea by GEGS. Is the only plaintiff to pursue appeal. 2 2 recorded during the stranding incident. At the time the requests were sent. Nor was the United States. Arguing that the United States Navy owned the SEPTAR on which Wilson and the others were injured. That therefore the United States was the only proper party in interest. It is important to note that when the court issued this deadline. No statute of limitations issue was before the district court when it set the September 24. The amended complaint was filed on September 25. Wilson's brief misleadingly states that the amended complaint was filed on September 24. The amended complaint included in the Wilson's appendix is date stamped by the clerk's office </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/95-9425.opa.html">AMBASSADOR FACTORS V. RHEIN-, MAAS-, UND SEE- SCHIFFAHRTSKONTOR<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Ambassador Factors v. The court held that the Topgallant to Ambassador assignment was valid.<p> According to the complaint in the instant proceeding. 000 in unpaid freights is due under the contract. Claiming that the fact that Ambassador is the assignee of the right to collect on a shipping contract </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar95/93-5209.opa.html">FLORES V. CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Flores v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This case presents a novel question: if a seaman whose income consists mainly of tips becomes ill or injured and is unable to work. Can he recover those tips under the remedy for wages that is provided by admiralty law? We hold that the average tip income the seaman was earning prior to his incapacitation is to be included in the measure of wages he is due if he becomes unable to work.<p> <b>I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</b><p> <p> Mario Flores is a seaman who signed two consecutive employment contracts to work as a cabin steward on cruise ships owned by Carnival Cruise Lines. Further provided:<p> If you have been contracted as a ... <i>CABIN STEWARD. [T]he tips you may expect go as high as <i>$1000.00 a month.</i> Carnival will take it upon itself to inform passengers of what is customarily tipped for the work that you perform.<p> <p> [Flores Br. 3. B] The underlined words and figures were typed into blank spaces on the original printed form.<p> Flores claims that he worked on the Ecstasy until April 27. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963494.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from a maritime limitation proceeding initiated pursuant to Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (Rule F). Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings. Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings. The Admiralty Rules were variously amended. Was adopted in 1966. The Owners allege their liability is limited under OPA 90 to $1. Notices were issued to potential claimants that all claims against each of the Owners had to be filed in the respective limitation proceeding within 60 days or the right to recover from the Owners would be forfeited. This case has a long and complicated procedural history.2 We are concerned here with three of the district court's rulings. The district court ruled that Florida is entitled to sovereign immunity from the limitation proceeding. Concluding that claims brought pursuant to OPA 90 are not subject to Rule F and therefore cannot be constrained to the limitation proceeding. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/032541p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We similarly conclude that we do not have appellate jurisdiction under the provisions for appellate review of certain interlocutory orders found in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and (3). Which we will dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The arbitration has been Because this is an in rem action. The King A itself is the defendant with King David merely acting on its behalf. Adopted a `personification' theory in which the vessel itself is a party and judgments are entered against her without the necessity of securing jurisdiction over the owner. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar95/93-5209.opa.html">FLORES V. CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Flores v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This case presents a novel question: if a seaman whose income consists mainly of tips becomes ill or injured and is unable to work. Can he recover those tips under the remedy for wages that is provided by admiralty law? We hold that the average tip income the seaman was earning prior to his incapacitation is to be included in the measure of wages he is due if he becomes unable to work.<p> <b>I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</b><p> <p> Mario Flores is a seaman who signed two consecutive employment contracts to work as a cabin steward on cruise ships owned by Carnival Cruise Lines. Further provided:<p> If you have been contracted as a ... <i>CABIN STEWARD. [T]he tips you may expect go as high as <i>$1000.00 a month.</i> Carnival will take it upon itself to inform passengers of what is customarily tipped for the work that you perform.<p> <p> [Flores Br. 3. B] The underlined words and figures were typed into blank spaces on the original printed form.<p> Flores claims that he worked on the Ecstasy until April 27. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043938p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A federal employee's recovery against the United States for injuries that he sustains on the job is limited to the fixed benefits to which he is entitled under the statutory compensation scheme. Bar contribution claims against the United States by third parties who are sued by such a federal employee. The District Court held that these contribution claims against the United States were barred because the substantive right to contribution in the maritime law is unavailable where the party against whom contribution is sought enjoys statutory immunity from liability to the injured plaintiff. We agree with the District Court and will therefore affirm.1 McAllister also appeals the District Court's dismissal of its contract based claims for indemnification. The USNS MOHAWK was assigned to do most of the towing. The relevant portion of the statute provides: The liability of the United States or an instrumentality thereof under this subchapter or any extension thereof with respect to the injury or death of an employee is exclusive and instead of all other liability of the United States or the instrumentality to the employee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963494.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from a maritime limitation proceeding initiated pursuant to Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (Rule F). Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings. Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings. The Admiralty Rules were variously amended. Was adopted in 1966. The Owners allege their liability is limited under OPA 90 to $1. Notices were issued to potential claimants that all claims against each of the Owners had to be filed in the respective limitation proceeding within 60 days or the right to recover from the Owners would be forfeited. This case has a long and complicated procedural history.2 We are concerned here with three of the district court's rulings. The district court ruled that Florida is entitled to sovereign immunity from the limitation proceeding. Concluding that claims brought pursuant to OPA 90 are not subject to Rule F and therefore cannot be constrained to the limitation proceeding. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2198.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pitts with whom Pitts & Pitts was on brief for appellants. Was on brief for appellee. Were on board under the auspices of a sailing program run by the American Sail Training Association ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/96-3494.man.html">BOUCHARD TRANSP. CO., INC. V. UPDEGRAFF (7/31/1998, NO. 96-3494)<BR></A><BR> Is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from a maritime limitation proceeding initiated pursuant to Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (Rule F). Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings. Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings.</P> <P><CENTER>I. The Admiralty Rules were variously amended. Was adopted in 1966.</P> <P> Rule F(1) states that a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/96-3494.man.html">BOUCHARD TRANSP. CO., INC. V. UPDEGRAFF (7/31/1998, NO. 96-3494)<BR></A><BR> Is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from a maritime limitation proceeding initiated pursuant to Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (Rule F). Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings. Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings.</P> <P><CENTER>I. The Admiralty Rules were variously amended. Was adopted in 1966.</P> <P> Rule F(1) states that a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1904.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for Perez y Cia. de Puerto Rico. That were begun but never completed. Perez argues that the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are erroneous. It contends that the district court erred in finding that it was negligent and in breach of its contractual obligations and argues both that the shipowner's contributory negligence caused the damages that are in issue here and that the ship was worthless when it first arrived at the shipyard. We note that LA ESPERANZA was sold at public auction by the U.S. Its argument on appeal is that the court erred in enforcing a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/95-4765.man.html">ISBRANDTSEN MARINE SERVS. V. M/V INAGUA TANIA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Isbrandtsen Marine Servs. v. The M/V INAGUA TANIA is an ocean going freighter of Honduran registry whose crew was composed of aliens from Central and South America. The vessel was arrested on March 1. At the time of the arrest the vessel was engaged in the carriage of international trade for hire. It was arrested in Port Everglades but shortly after the arrest a substitute custodian was placed in charge and the vessel was moved to an offshore anchorage.<p> The vessel had been on charter and was scheduled to commence a new charter two days after its arrest. The shipowner's motion for relief was heard by a Magistrate Judge who set a release bond in the approximate amount of $300. The bond was to be for the benefit of Isbrandtsen alone. Isbrandtsen sought an immediate sale of the vessel claiming that it was a wasting asset. (Actually the greatest cause of waste was the substantial cost of the substitute custodian.). The owner opposed this application advising the Court that it was attempting to obtain security in accordance with the Court's order and that it was also attempting to settle the claims of Isbrandtsen. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982071.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Two actions filed by the families of fishing boat crewmen who were lost at sea and one limitation of liability action filed by the boat's owner with respect to the other two actions. We are required to enforce the mechanism specified by the Shipowner's Limitations of Liability Act that all other actions against the owner </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/95-4765.man.html">ISBRANDTSEN MARINE SERVS. V. M/V INAGUA TANIA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Isbrandtsen Marine Servs. v. The M/V INAGUA TANIA is an ocean going freighter of Honduran registry whose crew was composed of aliens from Central and South America. The vessel was arrested on March 1. At the time of the arrest the vessel was engaged in the carriage of international trade for hire. It was arrested in Port Everglades but shortly after the arrest a substitute custodian was placed in charge and the vessel was moved to an offshore anchorage.<p> The vessel had been on charter and was scheduled to commence a new charter two days after its arrest. The shipowner's motion for relief was heard by a Magistrate Judge who set a release bond in the approximate amount of $300. The bond was to be for the benefit of Isbrandtsen alone. Isbrandtsen sought an immediate sale of the vessel claiming that it was a wasting asset. (Actually the greatest cause of waste was the substantial cost of the substitute custodian.). The owner opposed this application advising the Court that it was attempting to obtain security in accordance with the Court's order and that it was also attempting to settle the claims of Isbrandtsen. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1637.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Umpierre Solares is an officer of Divers Service Center. Inc. \ Milton Andrews Figueroa is the sole shareholder of Milton Andrews\ Crane Service Center. The only filings in which Soto LaCourt\'s name appears are Plaintiffs\' motion to remand and the\ joint discovery report. Were brought solely by the PRPA. </p>\ </span>' var WPFootnote4 = '<span class= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1980.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for the Director. Were on brief for Bath Iron Works.</P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012227.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These orders were entered after the court discovered RMST's plans to sell some of the artifacts and confirmed that the court's earlier orders prohibiting the sale of artifacts </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2104_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ED8FA1537F4D6C17882572BF00584125/$file/0535468.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have not had the occasion to determine whether Erie principles apply when federal courts exercise jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). The basis of a federal court's jurisdiction over a state law claim is irrelevant for Erie purposes. It is the duty of federal courts to ascertain and apply that law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/67681A6140748CF988256C62007C6857/$file/0116447.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is the legal owner of the Fierce Packer. Ellis was put in touch with Skagvik. Additional crew were hired to work on the Fierce Packer. He initialed the same document that was initialed by Mallars. The first trip was from December 21. The second trip was from January 13 to 27. The final trip was from February 4 to 17. They told Hansen that Ellis was behind on payments to the crew and that shippers were beginning to complain about Ellis. He was owed $3. He was given a draw of $1. Was still owed $2. Skagvik learned that IMAR was in bankruptcy and that they had been fired for (allegedly) consuming alcohol while on the Fierce Packer. Schultz The district court found that this difference in the parties' factual accounts was attributable to confusion surrounding IMAR's bankruptcy and that there was no evidence of any deliberate dishonesty. (2) Hansen could not have expected the crew to wait on the ship without compensation. (3) a crew was needed on the ship to keep it protected and maintained and to continue exploring the possibility of further cargo voyages under Hansen's operation. 2 MADEJA v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011670.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The district court found that M & D was liable to Duck Head under the Carmack Amendment. I. This appeal concerns a container of shoes that Duck Head arranged to have shipped from Santos. Determining that its total loaded weight was 12. Capital then sealed the container with two seals bearing individualized numbers.2 The container was shipped by truck from Capital's warehouse to Santos. Where it was loaded onto a ship. Brazilian customs officials inspected the container when it was loaded onto the ship. They found that the seals were intact and confirmed that the container weighed 12. The second driver delivered the One of these seals is described by the parties as bearing a bar code. A bill of lading is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-13117.man.html">INT'L AIRCRAFT RECOVERY V. UNIDENTIFIED, WRECKED, AND ABANDONED AIRCRAFT (7/17/2000, NO. 99-13117)<BR></A><BR> The plane flew </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1664.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Perry were on brief for appellants. P.C. were on brief for appellee. Circuit Judge. punitive damages or damages for loss of parental and spousal society allegedly caused by a nonfatal injury to a seaman aboard a vessel in territorial waters are recoverable in an unseaworthi ness action under the general maritime law. The district court entered summary judgment for Mobil on all three claims.1 1Jurisdiction over this interlocutory admiralty appeal is based on 28 U.S.C. 1292 (a)(3). 1064 (1st Cir. 1987). 2 II II DISCUSSION DISCUSSION The Supreme Court has decided that damages for loss of society are not cognizable in a general maritime action for the wrongful death of a seaman. Because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/99-13117.man.html">INT'L AIRCRAFT RECOVERY V. UNIDENTIFIED, WRECKED, AND ABANDONED AIRCRAFT (7/17/2000, NO. 99-13117)<BR></A><BR> The plane flew </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0005E1F8E80056658825706F000CED83/$file/0336012.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court concluded that Thorman's claims were time barred because the contractual six month limit on disputes had expired. Crucial to our decision is that the merits of Thorman's claims are not before us. We are faced with the threshold issue of whether Thorman has overcome the sixmonth time bar to his claims. Lead a reasonable person to believe that he did not have a claim for relief. As passive concealment is insufficient for a court to grant equitable tolling </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034395p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whose sailboat was destroyed by heavy seas after it was moored at the Virgin Islands National Park. We must decide whether equitable tolling is applicable to save Hedges' claim. Where it was destroyed. Which was manufactured by Environmental Moorings International ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611582.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: At issue today is whether the district court erred in dismissing. We conclude that the district court did indeed have subject matter jurisdiction. Have various usury laws that generally prohibit such high interest loans. No one doubts that when so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/98-4455.man.html">COASTAL FUELS MKTG. V. FLORIDA EXPRESS SHIPPING CO. (3/28/2000, NO. 98-4455)<BR></A><BR> Because the court failed to determine whether the amount of attorney's fees requested by Defendant Florida Express Shipping Co. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1789.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court determined that the parties were equally liable and apportioned damages accordingly. Was pushing four barges. The 95th Street Bridge is managed and maintained by the City of Chicago in trust for the general public. The bridge 2 The M/V Morgan is owned by Kindra Lake Towing. References to the M/V Morgan encompass all relevant defendants. 3 A winch is a mechanical device used for drawing in and loosening a line. Though the full distance from the eastern to the western side of the bridge is 206 feet. The navigable waterway spans only 200 feet and the portion of the bridge which houses the electrical cables on the western pier face is outside of the navigable channel. The recessed slot was also covered by a wooden fender.6 However. The City chose not to replace it.7 4 A dolphin is a pile cluster. The fender system is comprised of long planks of wood. The crew was inexperienced with the M/V Morgan. The four barges were tied two long and two abreast. The M/V Morgan was positioned behind the barges. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958459.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Survivors of three naval aircraft crewmembers who were killed after ejecting from a crashing Lockheed manufactured aircraft. Were killed and Air Warfare Technician Second Class (AW2) Tracy Mann was injured when they ejected from a S 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1530.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellees. *Of the District of Massachusetts. Curtis is an alter ego of Robert Brewis and Connie Frazier. Neither Brewis nor Frazier is a party to this appeal. 3 3 judgment and/or the confirmation of an arbitration award2 in an amount exceeding $269. The complaint subsequently was amended to request damages in excess of $910. The court shall then have jurisdiction to direct the parties to proceed with the arbitration and shall retain jurisdiction to enter its decree upon the award. 5. An order so stating and authorizing a warrant for the arrest of the vessel or other property that is the subject of the action shall issue and be delivered to the clerk who shall prepare the warrant and deliver it to the marshal for service. . . . 5 5 sale of the vessel would be granted unless security were posted within three days. Attached to the notice of stay was a proposed order which apparently contained language directing that the arrest of the vessel be dissolved.6 Evidently. The proposed order never was noticed to or served upon Taino.7 For several months. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971394.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Waggoner was injured while riding on the jet ski and sued. The district court dismissed the suit on the grounds that it was barred by the waiver. Is governed by principles of maritime law. Where States have a strong interest in applying their own tort law. Or was not on all fours with the maritime shipping and commerce that has traditionally made up the business of most maritime courts </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/991346P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is before the court on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States for further proceedings following the Court's reversal of our decision. The background facts are not in dispute. The following statement of facts is taken in large part from the Court's opinion. He was injured aboard the M/V Karen Michelle when he tripped over a wire and hurt his back. The district court5 followed the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/98-4455.man.html">COASTAL FUELS MKTG. V. FLORIDA EXPRESS SHIPPING CO. (3/28/2000, NO. 98-4455)<BR></A><BR> Because the court failed to determine whether the amount of attorney's fees requested by Defendant Florida Express Shipping Co. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0D60B4250ADC881E88256C3E0058EAF9/$file/0156700.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They were each given a ticket packet containing ticket coupons and a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/021264p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fighting over these funds are. To whom they have been forfeited. Whether we should exercise our appellate jurisdiction when the appeal is from an order terminating one of two consolidated cases. We conclude that we should exercise our jurisdiction and we will reverse the District Court's award of judgment of forfeiture and remand for further proceedings. The government instituted the forfeiture action by filing a civil complaint for forfeiture in the same court.2 The forfeiture complaint alleged that the seized funds were involved in a drug money laundering conspiracy headed by a South American money exchanger. Glikas was arrested in April 1998 and convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering in March 1999. The government claimed that the seized funds were subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 and 984 for involvement in transactions that violated the federal money laundering statutes. Kesten was thus prosecuting a civil action in New York and defending a civil forfeiture action in New Jersey. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043670p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the companies were operating as agents of the United States Navy. The only proper defendant in the case was the United States. He sought and was granted leave to file an amended complaint naming the United States as a party. We conclude that this decision was in error. Will reverse. Dyn Marine is incorrectly identified in the complaint and caption of the case as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984455.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the court failed to determine whether the amount of attorney's fees requested by Defendant Florida Express Shipping Co. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984455.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the court failed to determine whether the amount of attorney's fees requested by Defendant Florida Express Shipping Co. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/99/99-3777.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Events were set in motion in August and September 1991. The old tunnels have found new uses. Deterioration could have been stopped if the damage had been detected during inspections and the roof shored up pending repairs. Navigation on the River was halted for about a month while the tunnel was repaired. As part of a settlement the City of Chicago and a class of injured parties have succeeded to Great Lakes' rights under the policies. Insurance coverage could have been simple. At the beginning of August 1991 Great Lakes was the beneficiary of three relevant policies: a primary policy with a cap of $1 million and two excess policies purchased by its corporate parent Itel Corporation. On which Great Lakes was an additional insured: a first excess policy providing $40 million in coverage. Both of these excess policies were underwritten by a consortium that for convenience we call the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971813.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In which Judge Michael joined.* *Senior Judge Britt heard oral argument in this case but recused himself from consideration prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C.§ 46(d). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Westwood is no longer a viable entity and has not appeared before us. We dismiss the case as moot because we have no power to grant the relief sought by Woodlands. 2 I. Is not present in the district and therefore not subject to the district's personal jurisdiction. Which was served on NationsBank at its Baltimore branch office on October 9. Arguing that the Charlottesville account was outside the Maryland court's jurisdiction. The district court granted Westwood's motion on the ground that the two NationsBank branches were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/95-4509.opa.html">KASPRIK V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kasprik v. STATEMENT OF THE CASE<p> <p> This action arises from an incident which occurred while Andrew Kasprik was performing his duties as a second assistant engineer aboard the U.S.S. Kasprik was employed by the United States as a crew member of a vessel owned by the United States through the Maritime Administration. It is undisputed that both OMI Ship Management Corporation and OMI Corporation were acting as the agents of the United States at the time of the incident which forms the basis of this action.<p> Kasprik allegedly injured his wrist while attempting to manually engage the turning gear lever of the main engine and incurred medical and support expenses as a result of his injury. OMI moved to dismiss Kasprik's claim on the grounds that the claim is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Suits in Admiralty Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov94/94turecamo.html">TURECAMO OF SAVANNAH, INC. V. UNITED STATES TURECAMO OF SAVANNAH. [1] IN CASES WHERE IF SUCH VESSEL WERE PRIVATELY OWNED OR OPERATED. OR IF SUCH CARGO WERE PRIVATELY OWNED OR POSSESSED. OR IF A PRIVATE PERSON OR PROPERTY WERE INVOLVED. RESIDE OR HAVE THEIR PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES. OR IN WHICH THE VESSEL OR CARGO CHARGED WITH LIABILITY IS FOUND. TO RECOVER MONEY ALLEGEDLY OWED TURECAMO BY THE DEFENDANT APPELLANT UNITED STATES FOR TOWING SERVICES FOR A UNITED STATES NAVAL VESSEL. BECAUSE WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE PRECEDENT SET IN BONANNI SHIP SUPPLY V. BACKGROUND THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE NOT DISPUTED. IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TOWING OCEANGOING AND OTHER VESSELS. THE YFNB 33 SEACON IS A PUBLIC VESSEL OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES. THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT TO HAVE THE YFNB 33 SEACON TOWED FROM MAYPORT. IN ORDER TO HAVE THE VESSEL TOWED. TURECAMO WAS TO RECEIVE $55."><BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep13/03-30038-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The underlying facts are not in dispute. Foster Wheeler is a multi national corporation which is principally domiciled in the United States and is engaged in a wide variety of manufacturing and shipping endeavors. Is engaged in the operation of vessels for the carriage of goods for hire. Was loaded aboard the AN NING JIANG at the port of Gijon. While the remainder of the shipment was loaded on the vessel in Tarragona. The equipment was delivered in good order to the ports of Tarragona and Gijon and loaded aboard the AN NING JIANG. Foster Wheeler and IMC were the only parties remaining in this litigation. A third party defendant were dismissed from the suit prior to the district court's entry of final judgment. 3 2 See 46 U.S.C. Section 1304(5) of COGSA provides in relevant part: Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss or damage to or in connection with the transportation of goods in an amount exceeding $500 per package ... unless the nature and value of such goods have been declared by the shipper before shipment and inserted in the bill of lading . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0008n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Comprised of approximately eleven attorneys including Leonard Jaques who was the Firm's President. Checked the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1619VOL2.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> were on brief. Capone LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Skeen LLP</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. There is no authority in law. Because the Coast Guard lacked the authority to remove the NORTHERN VOYAGER's master from his vessel against his will. The discretionary function exception relied upon by the government is inapposite. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1485F422AF12F48D88256E1C00832921/$file/0255330.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Join: These consolidated appeals from the district court's forfeiture order present the novel question whether the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov94/94turecamo.html">TURECAMO OF SAVANNAH, INC. V. UNITED STATES TURECAMO OF SAVANNAH. [1] IN CASES WHERE IF SUCH VESSEL WERE PRIVATELY OWNED OR OPERATED. OR IF SUCH CARGO WERE PRIVATELY OWNED OR POSSESSED. OR IF A PRIVATE PERSON OR PROPERTY WERE INVOLVED. RESIDE OR HAVE THEIR PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES. OR IN WHICH THE VESSEL OR CARGO CHARGED WITH LIABILITY IS FOUND. TO RECOVER MONEY ALLEGEDLY OWED TURECAMO BY THE DEFENDANT APPELLANT UNITED STATES FOR TOWING SERVICES FOR A UNITED STATES NAVAL VESSEL. BECAUSE WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE PRECEDENT SET IN BONANNI SHIP SUPPLY V. BACKGROUND THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE NOT DISPUTED. IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TOWING OCEANGOING AND OTHER VESSELS. THE YFNB 33 SEACON IS A PUBLIC VESSEL OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES. THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT TO HAVE THE YFNB 33 SEACON TOWED FROM MAYPORT. IN ORDER TO HAVE THE VESSEL TOWED. TURECAMO WAS TO RECEIVE $55."><BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/034830D526D0BEA888256D5D007C9E5F/$file/0235150.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Provided simply that a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/95-4509.opa.html">KASPRIK V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kasprik v. STATEMENT OF THE CASE<p> <p> This action arises from an incident which occurred while Andrew Kasprik was performing his duties as a second assistant engineer aboard the U.S.S. Kasprik was employed by the United States as a crew member of a vessel owned by the United States through the Maritime Administration. It is undisputed that both OMI Ship Management Corporation and OMI Corporation were acting as the agents of the United States at the time of the incident which forms the basis of this action.<p> Kasprik allegedly injured his wrist while attempting to manually engage the turning gear lever of the main engine and incurred medical and support expenses as a result of his injury. OMI moved to dismiss Kasprik's claim on the grounds that the claim is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Suits in Admiralty Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1420.html">FIREMAN S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY V. GORDON ENGLAND<BR></A><BR> For appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1462.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1995 is corrected as follows: On page 11. Tinkle was on brief for appellants. Are as follows. 857 of which were grouped off shore in arrangements referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2479.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Graffam & Lausell were on brief for defendant Crowley Towing. Sarraga were on brief for plaintiffs Berend J.D. Were forced to abandon her moments before the collision and were rescued several hours later. As the Rule 59(e) motion was not served until August 11. It was summarily denied. That the special jury verdict on liability is contrary to the evidence on comparative fault. a. An order denying a new trial will be reversed only if the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence. A federal court may not set aside a jury verdict and direct the entry of a contrary verdict unless no reasonable jury could have returned a verdict adverse to the moving party. Testified that the GLORIA followed proper col lision avoidance procedure.3 Captain Rivera stated that the GLORIA was placed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2366.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief. Mahoney & Miller were on brief. Have a difference of opinion as to nomenclature. Although the parties vigorously debate the exact content of this war of words appellant may or may not have been cashiered then and there it is undisputed that the RESOLUTE turned back. The captain either told or reminded appellant that he was fired and. 2A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct97/95-8459.opa.html">GRAY V. LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYS. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gray v. Survivors of three naval aircraft crewmembers who were killed after ejecting from a crashing Lockheed manufactured aircraft. Were killed and Air Warfare Technician Second Class (AW2) Tracy Mann was injured when they ejected from a S 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1555.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 17. Castro Amy was on brief for claimant appellant. Was on brief for the United States. At issue in this appeal is whether appellant Cotto Garc a was tardy in filing his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept98/97-3182.opn.html">WILKINS V. COMMERCIAL INV. TRUST CORP. (9/4/1998, NO. 97-3182)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</P> <P>PER CURIAM:</P> <P> This is an appeal concerning admiralty jurisdiction. We conclude that admiralty jurisdiction is lacking.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. Which planned to operate the <EM>Sun</EM> as a cruise ship.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/95-3201.man.html">HALE CONTAINER LINE, INC. V. HOUSTON SEA PACKING CO. (4/3/1998, NO. 95-3201)<BR></A><BR> </EM> and the amount of damages it was awarded against Hale. </P> <P><CENTER>I. Owner shall have the option of terminating this agreement and Charterer shall forthwith surrender possession of said vessel to Charterer. Owner shall have a lien on all cargoes and subfreights for all charter payments and general averages.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-9112.man.html">BROUGHTON V. FLORIDA INT'L UNDERWRITERS, INC. (4/24/1998, NO. 96-9112)<BR></A><BR> That the insurer was financially unsound. We hold that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. We vacate the judgment entered by the district court and remand the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.</P> <P><CENTER>I. <EM>FACTS</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Broughton is a Georgia resident who owned the shrimp trawler JOAN S. All communications between Broughton and FIU were handled through Coastal.</P> <P> Usher was placed in liquidation by a Florida Circuit Court on December 13. All insurance policies issued by Usher were to be canceled as of January 10. FIU notified Coastal of another insurer that was willing to offer replacement coverage. Was totally destroyed. Broughton filed suit against Usher on the insurance policy and against FIU for breach of its alleged duty under Ga.Code Ann. § 33 5 25 to ensure the financial soundness of Usher before placing insurance with the company<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1898.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A.</U> was on brief for appellants.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012028.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The Internet is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011831.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. One of Fernandez's boats was the F/V Cap FERNANDEZ v. Also unknown to Fernandez was the fact that Haynie and two other individuals were actively involved in a venture to build their own marine insurance business. The loss of Fernandez's business would have dealt a significant blow to Haynie's efforts. The first attorney who handled Fernandez's case was unable to make contact with Liberty. Haynie argues that the district court improperly asserted admiralty jurisdiction over the case because the contract to procure marine insurance is not maritime. 4 FERNANDEZ v. The court finds that the contract is maritime in nature and the district court properly asserted admiralty jurisdiction over the case. 1043 (4th Cir. 1986) (stating that district court's decision to allow plaintiff to amend pleadings to conform to the evidence under Rule 15(b) is reviewed for abuse of discretion). A court applies federal common law and can look to state law in situations where there is no admiralty law on point. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315319.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The amended forfeiture complaint alleged that the deposits were subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §981(a)(1)(C) and (a)(1)(B) because they were traceable to specified unlawful activity and/or obtained directly or indirectly from an offense against a foreign nation. The amended complaint specified the eight names under which the 2 deposits were made. Alleging that the Verified Claim was (1) untimely. (2) that it did not comport with Supplemental Rule C(6) for Admiralty and Maritime Claims because it was not verified by a claimant. (3) that it was not properly verified by claimants' attorney in accordance with Southern District of Florida Local Admiralty Rules A(5) and B(2). All of whom are members of her family. 2003 Verified Claim filed by counsel was untimely and failed to comply with the verification requirements of Local Admiralty Rules A(5) and B(2). Although the claimant's Amended Verified Claim filed on her own behalf and on behalf of her family members was untimely. That the Amended Verified Claim failed to be sufficiently specific and that it was not properly verified by the absent putative claimants as required by 18 U.S.C. §983(a)(4)(A). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1998/98a1780p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That caused damage to its surrounding engine was separate property from the engine or was merely a component of the engine. 2) whether East River bars a tort claim for post sale duty to warn under a negligence theory when the damage is purely economic. 3) whether East River bars a tort claim for negligent repair when the damage is purely economic. The district court held 1) that the rod was not separate property from the engine. 2) that even when the injury is only economic. There is a post sale duty to warn claim if a defendant manufacturer had actual knowledge that the 2 product was defective. That GE did not have actual knowledge of the defective part prior to Sea Land's injury. 3) that East River bars a tort claim for negligent repair when the damage is purely economic. I. Facts Sea Land is a bareboat charterer of many vessels including the Sea Land Enterprise. The Enterprise was constructed in 1980. The Enterprise's SSDG is powered by a GE diesel engine. The diesel engine is made up of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct97/95-8459.opa.html">GRAY V. LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYS. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gray v. Survivors of three naval aircraft crewmembers who were killed after ejecting from a crashing Lockheed manufactured aircraft. Were killed and Air Warfare Technician Second Class (AW2) Tracy Mann was injured when they ejected from a S 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-9112.man.html">BROUGHTON V. FLORIDA INT'L UNDERWRITERS, INC. (4/24/1998, NO. 96-9112)<BR></A><BR> That the insurer was financially unsound. We hold that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. We vacate the judgment entered by the district court and remand the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.</P> <P><CENTER>I. <EM>FACTS</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Broughton is a Georgia resident who owned the shrimp trawler JOAN S. All communications between Broughton and FIU were handled through Coastal.</P> <P> Usher was placed in liquidation by a Florida Circuit Court on December 13. All insurance policies issued by Usher were to be canceled as of January 10. FIU notified Coastal of another insurer that was willing to offer replacement coverage. Was totally destroyed. Broughton filed suit against Usher on the insurance policy and against FIU for breach of its alleged duty under Ga.Code Ann. § 33 5 25 to ensure the financial soundness of Usher before placing insurance with the company<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/95-3201.man.html">HALE CONTAINER LINE, INC. V. HOUSTON SEA PACKING CO. (4/3/1998, NO. 95-3201)<BR></A><BR> </EM> and the amount of damages it was awarded against Hale. </P> <P><CENTER>I. Owner shall have the option of terminating this agreement and Charterer shall forthwith surrender possession of said vessel to Charterer. Owner shall have a lien on all cargoes and subfreights for all charter payments and general averages.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972330.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 97 2330 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was determined to fish that day at Northwest Places. The wind was steady out of the southwest. The seas were rolling and choppy. Impatient because it was now after lunch and they had not yet reached their fishing destination. Defendant was seated facing the wheel. His vision of oncoming waves was partially obstructed. The windshield was somewhat smeared with spray. Defendant's brother was seated next to him in the boat. Plaintiff was positioned behind defendant. Defendant's brother was concerned about the roughness of the ride. Defendant claimed it was necessary to drive the boat between twenty and twenty five miles per hour in order to plane the vessel. Evidence introduced at trial suggested that the vessel could have been planed at a lower speed. Plaintiff was thrown approximately twelve to eighteen inches in the air. Plaintiff was turned and fell backward onto the deck. Plaintiff was taken to a nearby hospital. The orthopedic surgeon who examined plaintiff determined that the injuries were caused by a high impact accident and were not consistent with a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200610685.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue in this appeal is whether the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A08B13527C87654C882571680058C890/$file/0435724.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that the two vessels were operating in concert according to agreed maneuvers. Therefore determined that several substantive provisions of the COLREGS at issue were inapplicable. While the Allegiance was still two to three miles away. The pilot and helmsman aboard the Allegiance realized that the tug boat was also closing the lateral distance between the vessels. Are you ok? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june96/95-7050.wpd.html">TEW V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> The structure was a roadway and low water dam constructed by a private citizen without governmental approval. The Department of the Army Corps of Engineers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTUzMDgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-5308-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When the steel coils were subsequently loaded onto SK Shipping's vessel. Were the governing contract of carriage and that their South Korea forum selection clause controlled. SK Shipping is bound to the terms of its contract. BACKGROUND As is often the case in intercontinental ocean shipping. The litigants are connected to a network of affiliated companies.1 Asoma is apparently affiliated with four companies MUR London. A key price term was FOB Kaohsiung. The steel was to be shipped to the United States during October or November 1999. 1 1 2 3 4 5 As the Supreme Court recently stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0184n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appeals a determination he was negligent in causing a fire aboard his houseboat that spread and damaged seventeen vessels at the marina where he docked. Hartley argues that: (1) the district court's finding of negligence was clearly erroneous. (3) the district court erred to the extent liability was based on unseaworthiness. We affirm the district court because its finding of negligence was not clearly erroneous and the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings. Hartley's vessel was unseaworthy. The finding of negligence is sufficient to support the judgment of liability and any error regarding the doctrine of seaworthiness is therefore harmless. Patricia Hughes were awakened by an explosion at the Pier 99 Marina. Was burning. While the exterior hulls of the boats on either side were on fire. After the fire was put out. The M/V Nina's Casino was a 65 foot seagoing houseboat docked at slip 33 of the Pier 99 Marina. Two of which were identified by experts as possible causes of the fire.2 The first was an electric space heater kept in the main cabin of the boat. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/04AE71A22799055B88256E83007BB106/$file/0257014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that although service of process was not made </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept98/97-3182.opn.html">WILKINS V. COMMERCIAL INV. TRUST CORP. (9/4/1998, NO. 97-3182)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</P> <P>PER CURIAM:</P> <P> This is an appeal concerning admiralty jurisdiction. We conclude that admiralty jurisdiction is lacking.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. Which planned to operate the <EM>Sun</EM> as a cruise ship.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/98-5729.man.html">POLO RALPH LAUREN, L.P. V. TROPICAL SHIPPING & CONSTR. CO. (6/21/2000, NO. 98-5729)<BR></A><BR> An owner of goods lost at sea has against the carrier when the owner of the goods is not a named party to the bill of lading. We also address the novel issue of what cause of action is afforded under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. The container containing Polo's cargo was lost overboard in rough seas. The district court granted the motion as to the contract claim on the ground that Polo did not have standing because it was not named in the bills of lading. Challenging both the district court's conclusion that COGSA provides an exclusive remedy and that Polo is barred from seeking redress under COGSA.</P> <P><CENTER>II. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1776.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Sulloway & Hollis was on brief for appellants U.S. Sullivan and Rice Dolan & Kershaw were on brief for appellants Supreme Court of Rhode Island. Were on brief for appellees. Chief Judge is whether a United States District Court has the power to adopt a local rule that requires federal prosecutors to obtain judicial approval before they serve a subpoena on an attorney to compel evidence concerning a client. Does not have the power to do so with respect to grand jury subpoenas. It is necessary briefly to review some of the recent history leading to this lawsuit. 21 U.S.C. 848 (1988) (evidence that legal representation was provided by a benefactor. The instances of federal prosecutors subpoenaing attorneys to compel evidence regarding theirclients have. The Assistant Attorney General must find that the information is necessary for an investigation or prosecution. That the subpoena is narrowly drawn. Id. 3 In the first year that the Department of Justice Guidelines were in effect. Of which 278 subpoenas were for grand jury proceedings and 85 for trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQwNjYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4066-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was severely damaged when the train carrying the cargo derailed in Texas. The bills of lading were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/002767P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The bridge was damaged when the Arkansas River Co.'s pushboat. The district 2 court1 found that the Arkansas River Co. was liable to the Commission for the damage to the bridge. The district court further found that the Arkansas River Co. was entitled to 100% contribution from the United States because the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Failed to tender the barge to the Hines' captain in a condition that would have permitted it to pass safely under the bridge. A time charter is a maritime contract providing that the chartered vessel's owner navigates. The chartering party directs the work the vessel is to perform. Including the routes it will take. A dragline is an excavating machine that has a bucket attached by cables to the end of a long boom. The bucket is filled by using the cables to draw the bucket toward the machine. The boom's tip is 75 to 80 feet above the water. The tip is 110 to 120 feet above the water. The Corps' employees in Greenville were preparing the Odum for transport under the direction of Walter Fuquay. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/03/024121P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Belterra appeals the district court's1 determination that Missouri Barge is entitled to a limitation of liability for the collision. Passing agreements were made using whistles. Believing that he was still communicating with the Eileen Bigelow. Cummins assumed he was approaching a construction site. Rich realized that the Elizabeth Ann was not moving to starboard fast enough. A passing agreement is a communication made between two approaching vessels whereby they agree in advance on which side of the river each will be when the vessels meet and pass. This communication is usually made by marine radio. 43 contributed to the collision by not being far enough to the right descending bank of the river to make the passing. Missouri Barge cross appeals arguing that the district court misinterpreted Rule 14 and that the court's findings that Cummins made a starboard to starboard passing agreement with the Miss Belterra was clearly erroneous. When two power driven vessels are meeting . . . so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other. 4 The court found. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTY2MTAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-6610-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A Bill of Lading for the shipment issued on that date indicated that the shipper was Chemlube International. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9EA6645FBBA6B29B88256B59000308AC/$file/9916194.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/95-8330.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. 408 PEYTON RD., S.W. (12/8/1998, NO. 95-8330)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> At issue in the present appeal is whether predeprivation notice and a hearing must be provided when the Government executes a seizure warrant against real property. We hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment mandates provision of such predeprivation procedures even when the seizure of real property is not physically intrusive. When the Government has failed to provide predeprivation notice and a hearing but the property is found to be subject to forfeiture after the process due has been afforded. The proper remedy is as follows: The Government should return any rents received or other proceeds realized from the property during the period of illegal seizure. </P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/62716009BC4364EE88256A38005B827A/$file/9935588.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Orsini's job was to untie the crab pot when brought onboard and hold open the pot door when the catch was mechanically shaken out. While he was performing these duties. Orsini reported to Norton that his right wrist was swollen and hurt. His right arm was sore. Orsini gave a personal injury report describing numbness and pain from his fingers to elbow and stating that he was injured on January 19th holding open the door to a crab pot. 1 Many facts herein are set forth in Orsini's affidavit opposing summary judgment. Most are undisputed. To the extent facts are disputed. 313 (1996). 5123 Orsini was treated at a health clinic in Ulalaska by a physician's assistant who Orsini thought was a doctor. Orsini was given a limited work release for an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2003/024098p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal issue on appeal is the proper application of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to the proffered testimony of plaintiffs' experts. 3 I. Its tragic facts have been well documented. Twelve year old Natalie Calhoun was vacationing with her friend. Affixed to the jet ski was a warning that the minimum recommended age for operation was fourteen. No parents or guardians were present at this time. While Melanie was riding the jet ski. Fox that riding the jet ski was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/387A3189960A913888256E5A00707B02/$file/9935588.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Orsini's job was to untie the crab pot when brought onboard and hold open the pot door when the catch was mechanically shaken out. While he was performing these duties. Orsini reported to Norton that his right wrist was swollen and hurt. His right arm was sore. Orsini gave a personal injury report describing numbness and pain from his fingers to elbow and stating that he was injured on January 19th holding open the door to a crab pot. 1 Many facts herein are set forth in Orsini's affidavit opposing summary judgment. Most are undisputed. To the extent facts are disputed. 313 (1996). 5123 Orsini was treated at a health clinic in Ulalaska by a physician's assistant who Orsini thought was a doctor. Orsini was given a limited work release for an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/033441P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was $2.2 million. The district court determined that the owner of the M/V Anne Holly and the employer of its crew were entitled to 1 The complete caption for these consolidated cases is available from the clerk's office. limit their liability to $2.2 million under the Limitation of Liability Act. The district court also determined that the captain of the M/V Anne Holly was competent in general but negligent in this instance and that the allisions resulted from his spontaneous navigational error. Was partially at fault due to its failure to shield or move the Admiral after repeated past allisions at the same location. Because Winterville was not an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/95-8330.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. 408 PEYTON RD., S.W. (12/8/1998, NO. 95-8330)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> At issue in the present appeal is whether predeprivation notice and a hearing must be provided when the Government executes a seizure warrant against real property. We hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment mandates provision of such predeprivation procedures even when the seizure of real property is not physically intrusive. When the Government has failed to provide predeprivation notice and a hearing but the property is found to be subject to forfeiture after the process due has been afforded. The proper remedy is as follows: The Government should return any rents received or other proceeds realized from the property during the period of illegal seizure. </P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec97/96-2931.man.html">WHITE V. MERCURY MARINE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>White v. The district court held that White's claim was barred by the general maritime statute of limitations. One common feature of those boats was that they had Mercury Marine engines. How open the throttle is. The operator was positioned close to the engine. Was exposed to substantial noise from Mercury Marine's engines throughout his employment.<p> Not surprisingly. The parties agree that White's hearing is impaired. They also agree that at least as early as 1984 White became aware that the loud engine noise was causing him hearing loss. A doctor advised White that his constant exposure to loud engine noise was causing his hearing loss. In 1990 White filed a workman's compensation claim in which he stated that the constant exposure to engine noise had caused his gradual loss of hearing.<p> It was not until 1994 that White sued Mercury Marine in federal district court.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1619VOL1.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> were on brief. Capone LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Skeen LLP</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. Affirming the judgment only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the appellee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1696.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> was on brief for petitioner. Decof</SPAN> were on brief for claimant. Was employed on the M/V Reflections. The result was anoxic brain injury anoxic refers to the lack of oxygen so severe that his life was despaired of. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1356p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is one of first impression in this circuit. Is whether O'Connell's punitive damage claim premised on an arbitrary and willful failure to pay maintenance and cure is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Suits in Admiralty Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/073038CED26D2A5D882572DB0056D09F/$file/0456771.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. that were damaged while being transported across a container yard operated by Maersk Pacific Ltd. Starrag claims that the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1217.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 15. A pretrial conference was held in which defense counsel stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/98-5729.man.html">POLO RALPH LAUREN, L.P. V. TROPICAL SHIPPING & CONSTR. CO. (6/21/2000, NO. 98-5729)<BR></A><BR> An owner of goods lost at sea has against the carrier when the owner of the goods is not a named party to the bill of lading. We also address the novel issue of what cause of action is afforded under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. The container containing Polo's cargo was lost overboard in rough seas. The district court granted the motion as to the contract claim on the ground that Polo did not have standing because it was not named in the bills of lading. Challenging both the district court's conclusion that COGSA provides an exclusive remedy and that Polo is barred from seeking redress under COGSA.</P> <P><CENTER>II. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1996/96a1317p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Coastal filed a counterclaim against Nautilus alleging that Nautilus was solely responsible for the grounding. We are asked to determine whether the district court erred in admitting opinions and conclusions contained in a Coast Guard Report of the incident into evidence. We will affirm the ruling of the district court. I. We need only briefly set forth the underlying facts as they are detailed in the district court's opinion. The approach to the berth was unsafe. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200207/01-5220a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court in favor of the United States in a civil forfeiture action. Intervened and argued that the court had no juris diction because the property was outside the court's territori al jurisdiction and because the five year statute of limitations had run. Vasquez is the wife of Juan Ramon Matta. Matta is currently imprisoned in a federal penitentiary. Is derived from Matta's criminal operations. Civil forfeiture actions are brought against property. Forfeiture is an ancient penalty. The owner of the bull will not be held responsible. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011680.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. There were no eyewitnesses to the accident and no survivors. Who was probably steering the boat at the time of the collision. Was thrown overboard on impact and drowned shortly thereafter. The call was received by Petty Officer Shelley. Was unsuccessful. Another call from a similar voice was received. Nor did he inform his supervisor of the Mayday calls until after the boys' bodies were found. Gerald Lucas of the Charleston Harbor Pilots Association was piloting the M/V PEARL ACE when he was told that a boatswain onboard had heard someone screaming for help off the starboard side near buoy 22. The Pilots' Office told Shelley someone was heard yelling for help in the waters near buoy 22. A pilot boat was returning to the area to search.2 (Id. Requested a call back with whatever information was found. This is Petty Officer Shelley speaking. This is the Pilot Office. Pilots' Office: How are you doing? The boatswain on ship radioed to the bridge that he heard somebody yelling for help and the pilot boats have gone. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1721.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to review the dismissal of three separate causes of action by the district court. Two of the lawsuits were dismissed for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) motions. 03 1722 & 03 1723 mandated that the plaintiff should have filed elsewhere. Was dismissed because the statute of limitations had run on the statutory claim before filing. The district court did not indicate which Rule 12(b) motion it was granting when it dismissed the third case on statute of limitations grounds. Each bill of lading for each of the three shipments included three contractual provisions relevant to the present appeal: (a) Burns Harbor was designated as the port of discharge. This was necessary because the April 7 deadline under the COGSA statute of limitations was quickly approaching. Such extensions are commonly used in the industry to avoid litigation by providing more time for settlement negotiations. The documents were incomplete. This survey was available to Continental approximately one week prior to the April 27. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1124.html">SEA-LAND SERVICE INC V. DANZIG RICHARD J<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <U>Michael A. Of counsel on the brief was <U>James P. With him on the brief were <U>David W. Of counsel was <U>Daniel Wentzell</U>. This is a government contract case. The contract at issue was between the Navy s Military Sealift Command (MSC) and Sea Land Service. After performance of the contract was completed. Because Sea Land s rates for transporting that cargo were greater than the rates Sea Land charged private shippers to transport like goods. The McCumber Amendment was first enacted as a proviso to the Cargo Preference Act of 1904. If the President finds that the freight charged by those vessels is excessive or otherwise unreasonable. The purpose underlying the Cargo Preference Act was to help U.S. carriers meet foreign competition by giving them a preference in transporting military goods. <U>See</U> <U>Curran v. Congress was concerned. Two provisions were added to the statute to guard against that possibility. The first authorized the President to disregard the statutory preference if he found that domestic carriers were imposing excessive or unreasonable charges for transporting military freight. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5220a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge:<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/993940P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to review the district court's1 finding that a barge owner lost profits while repairing several barges damaged in towing accidents. We are also asked to review the district court's award of prejudgment interest on those lost profits. Twenty seven barges towed by Inland were damaged in accidents. Only the last claim is at issue in this appeal. Power and Johnston testified that the barge market was very active between February 1995 and July 1996. That Peavey's entire fleet of available barges was always in use to the extent possible. He testified that demand for barges between February 1995 and July 1996 was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510862.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We consider whether United States law was properly applied to govern a transaction between a Liberian shipowner and a Greek travel agency for travel services benefitting a Greek flagged cruise vessel while it was in a United States port. We find that Greek law­not United States law­should have been applied. Background Aktina is a Greek travel agency. Claiming that it was entitled to a maritime lien under the Commercial 3 Instruments and Maritime Liens Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec97/96-2931.man.html">WHITE V. MERCURY MARINE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>White v. The district court held that White's claim was barred by the general maritime statute of limitations. One common feature of those boats was that they had Mercury Marine engines. How open the throttle is. The operator was positioned close to the engine. Was exposed to substantial noise from Mercury Marine's engines throughout his employment.<p> Not surprisingly. The parties agree that White's hearing is impaired. They also agree that at least as early as 1984 White became aware that the loud engine noise was causing him hearing loss. A doctor advised White that his constant exposure to loud engine noise was causing his hearing loss. In 1990 White filed a workman's compensation claim in which he stated that the constant exposure to engine noise had caused his gradual loss of hearing.<p> It was not until 1994 that White sued Mercury Marine in federal district court.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept95/93-5102.opa.html">BRADFORD MARINE, INC. V. M/V "SEA FALCON"<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bradford Marine. The district court held that the <i>Sea Falcon</i> was properly liable for the fees because the repair contract at issue provided that the plaintiff would receive attorney's fees if it retained legal counsel to collect its repair charges. Because the repairs were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2001/00-13886.opn.html">NATCO LTD. PARTNERSHIP V. MORAN TOWING OF FLORIDA (9/28/2001, NO. 00-13886)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-2488.man.html">MID-S. HOLDING CO. V. UNITED STATES (9/1/2000, NO. 99-2488)<BR></A><BR> Acting on reports that the vessel was involved in narcotics trafficking. Was able to refloat the vessel. Abner was unable to refloat the vessel a second time. (2) Mid South did not have standing to bring the suit because it did not own the vessel at the time it was destroyed and therefore was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/97-4309.man.html">SEA SERVICES OF THE KEYS, INC. V. FLORIDA (10/2/1998, NO. 97-4309)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</P> <P> The principal issue in this case is whether Florida may invoke Eleventh Amendment immunity in an <EM>in rem</EM> admiralty action when the <EM>res</EM> is not within the state's possession. Sea Tow determined that the boat was in peril of sinking. After the Florida Marine Patrol discovered that the boat did not have a required hull identification number (<EM>see</EM> Fla. Stat. §§ 328.07(3)(b) (permitting seizure of a boat that does not have a hull identification number as contraband property and subjecting it to forfeiture under the Act). Holding that Sea Tow's action was not against Florida. We disagree and affirm because: (1) Florida did not have lawful possession of the boat pursuant to the Act. </EM> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/95-8330.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. 408 PEYTON RD.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. 408 Peyton Rd. United States Court of Appeals. Circuit Judge:

At issue in the present appeal is whether predeprivation notice and a hearing must be provided when the Government executes an arrest warrant against real property. We conclude that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment mandates provision of such predeprivation procedures even when the seizure of real property is not physically intrusive. The Government stated that Richardson's reported income was insufficient to sustain his real estate acquisition and development activities and that Richardson had engaged in a series of suspect financial transactions relative to the properties. The evidence persuaded a United States Magistrate Judge that probable cause existed to believe the properties were involved in or traceable to money laundering proscribed by 18 U.S.C.

347 CENTRAL STATE TRANSIT & LEASING CORP. V. JONES BOAT YARD, INC.

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Central State Transit & Leasing Corp. v. The court noted that the <i>Blackhawk</i> was documented and insured as a pleasure vessel and that the plaintiff had not lost any profits or incurred additional expenses while the vessel was being repaired. The plaintiff then perfected this appeal.<p> II.<p> <p> The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the district court's grant of partial summary judgment is not appealable. Although conceding that orders resolving the liabilities of the parties in admiralty actions are immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/98-2734.man.html">FREDERICK V. KIRBY TANKSHIPS, INC. (3/8/2000, NO. 98-2734)<BR></A><BR> Cure was excessive. Cure is not supported by the evidence. We have consolidated the appeals.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>II. This court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-2782.opa.html">LARUE V. JOANN M.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Larue v. Larue was a seaman employed as deckhand on a tug owned and operated by Moran Towing. When the tug's duties were completed she commenced retrieving from the deck of the Joann M. the 200 pound tow line that she had provided to the vessel. This required crewmen of the Joann M. to lift the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/95-9425.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb96/94-5254.opa.html">HILTON OIL TRANS. V. JONAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hilton Oil Trans. v. We conclude that there were genuine issues of material facts concerning the alleged breach of the trading warranty which precluded the entry of a summary judgment. It was towed to Amuay. Barge </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/99-11456.man.html">VENUS LINES AGENCY V. CVG INT'L AM. (12/4/2000, NO. 99-11456)<BR></A><BR> We decide whether there was sufficient mutual assent for the parties to form a valid new contract or modify an existing one. Also at issue are the application of the doctrine of laches to demurrage claims and the proper calculation of damages on demurrage claims.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/94-4583.opa.html">AMERICAN DREDGING CO. V. LAMBERT<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>American Dredging Co. v. We affirm the district court's ruling that American Dredging potentially is liable to the representatives for non pecuniary damages.<p> I. Where American Dredging was conducting a dredging operation. Which the dredge </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept95/93-5102.opa.html">BRADFORD MARINE, INC. V. M/V "SEA FALCON"<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bradford Marine. The district court held that the <i>Sea Falcon</i> was properly liable for the fees because the repair contract at issue provided that the plaintiff would receive attorney's fees if it retained legal counsel to collect its repair charges. Because the repairs were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2001/00-13886.opn.html">NATCO LTD. PARTNERSHIP V. MORAN TOWING OF FLORIDA (9/28/2001, NO. 00-13886)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-2488.man.html">MID-S. HOLDING CO. V. UNITED STATES (9/1/2000, NO. 99-2488)<BR></A><BR> Acting on reports that the vessel was involved in narcotics trafficking. Was able to refloat the vessel. Abner was unable to refloat the vessel a second time. (2) Mid South did not have standing to bring the suit because it did not own the vessel at the time it was destroyed and therefore was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/97-4309.man.html">SEA SERVICES OF THE KEYS, INC. V. FLORIDA (10/2/1998, NO. 97-4309)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</P> <P> The principal issue in this case is whether Florida may invoke Eleventh Amendment immunity in an <EM>in rem</EM> admiralty action when the <EM>res</EM> is not within the state's possession. Sea Tow determined that the boat was in peril of sinking. After the Florida Marine Patrol discovered that the boat did not have a required hull identification number (<EM>see</EM> Fla. Stat. §§ 328.07(3)(b) (permitting seizure of a boat that does not have a hull identification number as contraband property and subjecting it to forfeiture under the Act). Holding that Sea Tow's action was not against Florida. We disagree and affirm because: (1) Florida did not have lawful possession of the boat pursuant to the Act. </EM> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/95-8330.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. 408 PEYTON RD.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. 408 Peyton Rd. United States Court of Appeals. Circuit Judge:

At issue in the present appeal is whether predeprivation notice and a hearing must be provided when the Government executes an arrest warrant against real property. We conclude that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment mandates provision of such predeprivation procedures even when the seizure of real property is not physically intrusive. The Government stated that Richardson's reported income was insufficient to sustain his real estate acquisition and development activities and that Richardson had engaged in a series of suspect financial transactions relative to the properties. The evidence persuaded a United States Magistrate Judge that probable cause existed to believe the properties were involved in or traceable to money laundering proscribed by 18 U.S.C.

347 CENTRAL STATE TRANSIT & LEASING CORP. V. JONES BOAT YARD, INC.

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Central State Transit & Leasing Corp. v. The court noted that the <i>Blackhawk</i> was documented and insured as a pleasure vessel and that the plaintiff had not lost any profits or incurred additional expenses while the vessel was being repaired. The plaintiff then perfected this appeal.<p> II.<p> <p> The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the district court's grant of partial summary judgment is not appealable. Although conceding that orders resolving the liabilities of the parties in admiralty actions are immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/98-2734.man.html">FREDERICK V. KIRBY TANKSHIPS, INC. (3/8/2000, NO. 98-2734)<BR></A><BR> Cure was excessive. Cure is not supported by the evidence. We have consolidated the appeals.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>II. This court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-2782.opa.html">LARUE V. JOANN M.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Larue v. Larue was a seaman employed as deckhand on a tug owned and operated by Moran Towing. When the tug's duties were completed she commenced retrieving from the deck of the Joann M. the 200 pound tow line that she had provided to the vessel. This required crewmen of the Joann M. to lift the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/95-9425.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb96/94-5254.opa.html">HILTON OIL TRANS. V. JONAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hilton Oil Trans. v. We conclude that there were genuine issues of material facts concerning the alleged breach of the trading warranty which precluded the entry of a summary judgment. It was towed to Amuay. Barge </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/99-11456.man.html">VENUS LINES AGENCY V. CVG INT'L AM. (12/4/2000, NO. 99-11456)<BR></A><BR> We decide whether there was sufficient mutual assent for the parties to form a valid new contract or modify an existing one. Also at issue are the application of the doctrine of laches to demurrage claims and the proper calculation of damages on demurrage claims.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/95-4765.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/94-4583.opa.html">AMERICAN DREDGING CO. V. LAMBERT<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>American Dredging Co. v. We affirm the district court's ruling that American Dredging potentially is liable to the representatives for non pecuniary damages.<p> I. Where American Dredging was conducting a dredging operation. Which the dredge </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5105.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were J. With him on the brief were Emmett B. With him on the brief were Stuart E. The plaintiffs prevailed on their claim and were awarded damages for the breach. The common law rule is that a party generally may not collect its attorney fees from the loser. Each party is expected to bear its own attorney fees pursuant to the longstanding </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F9697D946CA355A188256FB2007FCE0D/$file/0355754.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction to review the district court's preliminary injunction order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Only one is directly relevant here: a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B1E6416438C95FF3882572E300839DF0/$file/0435182.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IN RE: THE EXXON VALDEZ 6039 ORDER IT IS ORDERED THAT: The opinion in In re Exxon Valdez. 472 F.3d 600 (9th Cir. 2006) is amended as follows: On page 621. Delete the first full paragraph commencing with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/10/053405P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. and the M/V Jamie Leigh to recover the cost of repairs to a lock and gate on the Mississippi River that were damaged after an allision with a barge towed by the M/V Jamie Leigh. The Corps is responsible for maintaining and operating Lock 25. The Corps assessed the damage to miter gate number two and determined that repairs were needed. The process of repairing a miter gate is extensive and requires that the damaged gate be pulled from the lock. The Corps determined that it would do the necessary repair work itself and that it would undertake repairs to miter gate one at the same time that miter gate two was being repaired. Repairs were completed to both miter gates on February 9. The initial estimate for the cost of repairs related to the M/V Jamie Leigh allision was between $350. The Government determined that the actual share of the damages owed by Capital Sand as the owner of the M/V Jamie Leigh was $303. A bill was sent for that amount. The case was later transferred to the Eastern District of Missouri upon the The Honorable Stephen N. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/03/031752P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Zbylut presented evidence that when there were not enough engine utilitymen working to comply with the vessel's Coast Guard Certificate. Even though the employee was not actually working in the engine room. Knowing that Zbylut's wife was Filipino and that Zbylut was president of a local PhilippineAmerican organization. Were generally unfriendly to him. In July 1999 Zbylut told supervisory personnel he was contemplating leaving Harvey's due to the harassment arising out of his complaints regarding the log books. Zbylut claimed he was constructively discharged for resisting orders to falsify log entries. The district court erred in not considering evidence he resigned because he was required to engage in illegal conduct. 1280 (1st Cir. 1993) (nothing in maritime law is at odds with state human rights statutes regarding handicapped rights). (2) the policy was undermined by discharging the employee. (3) the discharge was the result of engaging in the protected activity. (4) there was no other justification for the discharge. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/021531P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lawson and Mary Burford (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3624.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs in this suit for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act are 21 former employees of the defendant. 14 of the 21 also claim that they were fired in retaliation for making overtime claims. Which likewise is forbidden by the Act. The boat's home port is East Chicago. Both because it is considered as a less intrusive means of operation within a community. Is a real ship despite its outlandish name and is considered a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1639.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It alleged that a shipment of cigars entrusted 2 Nos. 02 1639 and 02 1741 to Yellow Freight was damaged in transit. That none of the excepted causes under the Carmack Amendment were proven by Yellow Freight. That the damaged cartons were part of the shipment at issue in the case. National Insurance crossappeals the district court's determinations that the date of subrogation rather than the date of delivery of the damaged goods is the date of accrual for prejudgment interest and that prejudgment interest would be simple rather than compound. He noted that some of the cardboard box tops were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051837p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge Appellant Ferrostaal claims that steel coils belonging to it were damaged in transit from Tunisia to New Jersey. We hold that the District Court correctly analyzed the choice of law question and that the fair opportunity doctrine is inconsistent with COGSA. We will. 000 a day.1 The Sea Phoenix was to be delivered into TST's control on or about November 24 or 25. The shipper was Tunisacier International S.A. The shipment was to be discharged at the Novolog terminal in Philadelphia and consigned to the order of Ferrostaal Inc. The total cost of the shipment was $171. Ferrostaal's German parent The Charter Party is a standard New York Produce Exchange time charter form modified with extensive strikeouts and an additional seventeen pages of terms. The Bills of Lading are clear and concise. No such date was provided. No charter party was named. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512220.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Steamship is a mutual insurance association that provided protection and indemnity ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415126.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because attorney's fees are not part of a salvage lien that may be awarded in an in rem action and the awarding of attorney's fees was not submitted to the arbitrator. Was grounded on the shore of Gun Cay in the Bahamas. Was on board and requested assistance. The contract provided that the services of OMT were rendered on a no cure/no pay basis and provided for arbitration of all disputes regarding the reasonableness of any fees or charges due under the contract. Stated that the case was an action to foreclose a maritime lien. Who is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida. The arbitrator overruled Ayouty's objections to an award of attorney's fees and stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116485.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A version of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act which is no longer in effect. Probable cause is no longer a central issue in forfeiture proceedings. 484.00 in cash was the proceeds of. Or was otherwise connected to. The burden shifted to Stanford to establish by a preponderance of the evidence one of two affirmative defenses: either that the money was not the proceeds of illegal drug activity. Or that she was an innocent owner. Stanford herself was her only witness at trial. 484.00 in cash she was carrying was not connected to illegal drug activity. The court was not persuaded. 484.00 Stanford was carrying was substantially connected to an illegal drug transaction. The opinion also explained that Stanford had not thereafter satisfied her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115975.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> If the duty is breached. The stevedore must indemnify the shipowner for damages it is required to pay a longshoreman who is injured aboard its vessel. Is whether Ryan's holding (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19945254.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that there were genuine issues of material facts concerning the alleged breach of the trading warranty which precluded the entry of a summary judgment. It was towed to Amuay. Barge </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2024.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> L.L.P.</SPAN> were on brief. P.A.</SPAN> were on brief. P.S.C.</SPAN> were on brief. Was substantially destroyed.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1794.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Peral</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1136.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. The retrofitted HUDDELL was towed to Simplex's facility at Newington. At which point three options were available for getting from the tank onto the 'tween deck floor: (1) holding onto a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1452.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee. (a)(7) and 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(A).1 The government alleged that this property had been used by claimant Torres Colon as a meeting place to discuss an illegal drug distribution scheme and that he bought it with proceeds traceable to his drug transactions for the purpose of laundering the money.2 Torres Colon subsequently was prosecuted for his alleged involvement in the drug distribution scheme. A bench trial was held in the civil forfeiture action against the defendant property. 121 U.S.C. 881(a)(6) and (a)(7) are part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Control and Prevention Act. Provide for forfeiture to the government of property connected with illegal drug transactions. 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(A) is part of the Money Laundering Control Act. Also provides for forfeiture of property traceable to money laundering transactions. 2Torres Colon was alleged to have participated in three separate schemes with one or two partners whereby one of the partners would order controlled substances through legitimate drug wholesalers in Miami. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1494.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Capone LLP</SPAN> was on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1454.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. That the United States was negligent and/or breached warranties in the surveying of the Boston Harbor and the dissemination of nautical charts that failed to accurately depict the depth of the harbor. That the district court erred in: (1) finding that there is an implied discretionary function exemption in the Suits in Admiralty Act. Which are maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1813.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A</U> and <U>Calvesbert Law Offices PSC</U> were on brief for appellent. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1021p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While six year old Urvashi was playing a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200002/99-7017a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whalen argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellees/cross appellants. Was not the real party in interest under Fed. LP </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982653.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found the state laws were preempted. Once the ship is outside of the state's territorial waters. Casino Ventures fears that its cruise business will violate South Carolina criminal laws restricting gambling. State statutes have long prohibited the possession and use of certain gambling devices within South Carolina territory. Casino Ventures sought a declaration that South Carolina's gambling laws are preempted by federal law and an order enjoining the enforcement of those state laws. It was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982120.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Many lives were lost as well as substantial sums of gold belonging to passengers and a large commercial shipment of gold in route from California to New York. The district court found that ColumbusAmerica was a first salvor under substantive admiralty law and thereby entitled to salvage the ship without interference and to the exclusion of other salvors. 1990 holding that the Underwriters had abandoned any interest they may have had in the gold and that ColumbusAmerica was entitled to keep everything recovered from the ship. 1993 finding that Columbus America was entitled to a salvage award of 90 percent of the recovered gold allegedly insured by the Underwriters. Was the marketing of the gold. The district court found that all parties agreed that a marketing plan was necessary. The court credited the reasoning of several marketing experts who were of opinion that the marketing plan should extend for some period of years. Finding that this approach was contrary to the Underwriters' earlier position. To which they were actually entitled. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972133.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The remaining issues of liability were also determined adversely to the Vessel Owner by the district court. The district judge determined that Carter was not liable to the Vessel Owner. That Carter was entitled to recover $4. The trial evidence was as follows. The Vessel was purchased by the Vessel Owner in 1988 from an insurance company after it had been damaged in a casualty. It was refurbished and used by the Vessel Owner as a commercial fishing vessel. The engine was over thirty 2 years old and had been rebuilt on multiple occasions prior to it being presented to Carter for replacement of piston and cylinder liners. When the Vessel was delivered to Carter. The engine did not have all its component parts. The engine room was unusually dirty. Determined that the engine was in overall bad shape. The engine and its parts were cleaned. 000 balance was acknowledged by the Vessel Owner. The Vessel was returned to Carter's facility for further work. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961209.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The COYOTE was sailing downwind at 5 to 8 knots. While the LADY OLIVE MARIE was drifting at 1 to 1.5 knots with her engines in neutral. The wind was from the northeast at 25 to 35 knots with seas of 10 to 15 feet. The night was clear with stars visible in the sky. Scully was sailing the COYOTE alone. The LADY OLIVE MARIE's captain and six member crew were working the vessel on a lay share agreement with Yarmouth. When the catch was landed. The crew of the LADY OLIVE MARIE were waiting for dawn and subsiding weather to begin fishing. Gordon Gray ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021016.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Who are creditors of Hawkspere. Because we conclude that the bulk of the bunker fuel aboard the NOBILITY was not the property of Hawkspere at the time of attachment. I. The facts in this case are largely undisputed but require rather detailed recitation. The company against whom attachment was sought. Hawkspere is not a party to this case and appears to now be defunct. While the NOBILITY was in St. The Sellers shall have a right of lien over the Marine Fuels delivered. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/95-4765.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/816F4480961CB44288256AA1005C8845/$file/0055358.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to ascertain the rights and responsibilities of several entities in relation to four separate contracts for the transportation of ten shipping containers from California to Japan. Held that Yang Ming Marine Transport Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1026p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are required to interpret and apply various sections of the Restatement (Second) of Torts to a lawsuit arising from a tragic construction accident in the Virgin Islands. The primary issue is the viability of Restatement section 343A. We will affirm. The power lines were clearly visible. There is no dispute that everyone involved with the project knew about the lines and that any contact with them would be dangerous.[fn1] On November 8. A crane was being used to lift steel joists that would connect the columns of the building frame. The first joist was installed with the use of a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTIyMzBfc28ucGRm/05-2230_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1085.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief for appellants. Cogavin and Cogavin & Waystack were on brief for appellees. The amended complaint (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1321.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alfaro & L pez Conway were on brief for appellant Metlife Capital Corporation. Garrity and Jim nez Graffam & Lausell were on brief for appellant Bunker Group. Were on brief for appellee United States of America. Nevares and Smith & Nevares were on brief for appellee Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. We hold that claims arising under the OPA (for pollution removal costs and damages) are not subject to the substantive or procedural law of the Limitation Act or to the concursus of claims under Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942782.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Larue was a seaman employed as deckhand on a tug owned and operated by Moran Towing. When the tug's duties were completed she commenced retrieving from the deck of the Joann M. the 200 pound tow line that she had provided to the vessel. This required crewmen of the Joann M. to lift the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1302p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Issue in this appeal is whether civil forfeiture. We conclude that we have jurisdiction and affirm. Lundis requested that the court allow him to keep the property in light of the court's requirement that he pay restitution.[fn1] The Government argued that the computers were proceeds of Lundis's crime. Thus were subject to civil forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §981(a)(1)(C).[fn2] The court denied Lundis's request for possession of the property. Stating that the computers were forfeitable </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972079.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For an oil spill were not compensable under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). Finding that the Fund Director had acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and that Gatlin Oil was entitled to compensation for all its recovery costs and damages with interest. Although a district court's remand to an agency is not usually within the purview of section 1291. The Supreme Court has noted an exception that is applicable to this appeal. The Court explained that an order reversing an agency's denial of benefits and remanding for proceedings consistent with the 2 district court's opinion was a final appealable order within the meaning of section 1291. The owner of an onshore facility is the party responsible for removal costs of a spill that discharges oil into navigable waters. The owner is afforded a complete defense. §§ 2702(d)(1)(A). The Act also created the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (Fund) for the payment of uncompensated removal costs that are consistent with the National Contingency Plan (Plan) and for the payment of uncompensated damages. §§ 2712(a)(3). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept95/93-5102.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><sup>1</sup>The <i>Sea Falcon</i> also argues that: (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to increase the amount of security placed in the court's registry after the <i>Sea Falcon</i> had been released. (2) the district court erred in concluding that there was no damage done to the vessel while it was under arrest (and under the care of Bradford. The first issue is moot. We reject the <i>Sea Falcon</i> 's second argument without discussion. <i>See</i> 11th Cir.R. 36 1. <p> <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar95/93-5209.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/679D33FA3FF9F01588257321006FB13E/$file/0535477.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Golden Pisces and OneBeacon are not entitled to attorneys' fees absent statutory authorization. Because the parties' contract was void. Which at the time this action arose was based in Newport. It was never signed by the ship's manager. Nor was it signed by a representative of Fred Wahl. It was towed back to Dutch Harbor and missed the remainder of the fishing season. Fred Wahl raised the affirmative defenses that Golden Pisces was comparatively negligent. The parties stipulated to several facts but disputed whether Golden Pisces was comparatively negligent and whether the terms of the form contract controlled. It further found </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-6200.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1642.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pitts with whom Pitts & Pitts was on brief for appellant. Loh with whom Marcigliano & Campise was on brief for appellees. The shipment was insured under an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031924.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was to report for duty in a few hours at Point Pleasant. Madison Coal's federal complaint asserts that the administrator's state court action is an admiralty or maritime claim and that Madison Coal is entitled to limitation of or exoneration from liability under admiralty law. Is an independent source of jurisdiction. Because neither the location test nor either prong of the connection test was met. We are persuaded that the district court reached the correct result. Which is sufficient to dispose of that issue. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1493.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Calvesbert & Brown was on brief for appellant. Palou & Miranda were on brief for appellees. As we conclude that it was improper for the recused judge to revisit the recusal order in these circumstances. No claims were made on the policy until after the JOHANNY's final voyage two years later. Set off from the Cangrejos Yacht Club in 1The material facts underlying the merits dispute are recited in the light most favorable to the judgment. To have the boat drydocked for repair. Concluded that it was safe to pro ceed. Varona noticed that the JOHANNY was riding abnormally low in the water. Was unable to contact either the United States Coast Guard or his yacht club in San Juan. The source of the leak was not located and. Marine salvage survey ors have never been able to locate her. Proffered opinions to the effect that the incursion of sea water into the engine compartment could have resulted from the failure of a stuffing box. Vaello's opinion was based largely on perceived irregularities in the manner in which Varona had pursued the insurance claim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1385.html">TRANSMATIC V. GULTON INDUSTRIES<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were Andrew M. Interest from the district court's initial judgment date to the remand judgment date should have been awarded at the postjudgment interest rate. The district court held that claim 1 was not proved to be invalid and was not literally infringed. That Gulton was liable for damages of approximately three million dollars in lost profits. Why certain expenses were fixed. The prejudgment interest rate awarded by the district court was several percentage points higher than the statutory postjudgment interest rate provided for under 28 U.S.C. 1961. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1) (1994).<p> <p> DISCUSSION<p> Gulton contends that Transmatic should have been awarded postjudgment interest for the interim period. Gulton asserts that the determination of the dividing line between pre and postjudgment interest is a procedural matter that requires us to follow Sixth Circuit law. The time when damages were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/07/971580P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The doctor informed the Postal Service that it would be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/03-7117a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1590.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7CB1646302D65C3688256A46005D0DEC/$file/9935910.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm in part because we hold that (1) the economic damages findings are sufficiently detailed for appellate review. (2) the noneconomic damage awards are sufficient. We reverse and remand in part because we hold that Simeonoff was not contributorily negligent for responding to a cry for help. Simeonoff was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510894.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the in personam breach of contract claim against the owner of the Vessel was due to be dismissed without prejudice. I. Introduction 2 This case is properly introduced by another opinion of this court. Were awarded Final Judgment after Default against the vessel on March 19. Thus Eko Elda's breach of contract claim against OWC in personam was due to be denied. Whether the altering of Eko Elda's tort claims from a Supplemental Rule C action to a Supplemental Rule B action would have any legal effect. 4. In that they are precluded from challenging the validity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1510.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Associates</SPAN> was on the brief. Donovan</SPAN> was on the brief. P.C.</SPAN> were on brief. Was on the brief. Are mothers of young women whom Whitey Bulger allegedly murdered in the 1980s. The other is one of his brothers. Whitey Bulger was indicted for crimes related to his alleged leadership of the Winter Hill Gang in Boston. He went into hiding and is on the FBI's list of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1088.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief. With whom Paul Antinori and Kneeland & Kydd were on brief. Carr an experienced commercial fisherman who was to oversee operations and captain the vessel held the balance. The rehabilitative work was performed by a reputable shipyard and master carpenters. Carr was the last to depart. PMS stipulated that the ship was unseaworthy at the time of the mishap and the negligence count (brought under the Jones Act) dropped out of the case. The ship must be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/07/013334P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was constructed in 1907. The construction of the Clinton Bridge was authorized by and constructed in accordance with permits issued by the United States Coast Guard. Appellant is the owner and operator of the Clinton Bridge. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar95/93-5209.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2379.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While our reasons are not identical to those offered by the district court. We conclude that the result was correct. I Douglas Schadel was employed as a conductor by the Iowa Interstate Railroad (IAIS). He was working on the morning of December 31. As part of a two person crew assigned to relieve an eastbound IAIS crew who were expected to come through the Joliet. Schadel's crew was to meet the train at an at grade railroad crossing west of Joliet. The one they chose was at Bush Road. Engineer Eddie Brown was the other crew member. Which were equipped with bells and flashing lights. Who was then standing behind the car. He was taken to a local emergency room. (This case was proceeding before the magistrate judge by consent of the parties. It was not permitted to consider 4 No. 02 2379 Kowalewicz's role. It found that he was 50% contributorily negligent. Of using a pro tanto approach (that is. IAIS argued that the court should have used a proportionate share approach. The jury would have allocated responsibility among all three parties and imposed damages on IAIS only to the extent of its share of the liability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199902/98-7082a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Harold Richard Mayberry. With him on the brief was Mitchell F. I. Matt Kasap is an experienced investor who maintained a nondiscretionary margin account with appellee Folger Nolan Fleming & Douglas. Was the registered representative for appellant's account. The district court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the parties were not diverse. Would have juris diction under title 28. (a) In any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration (1) Where the award was procured by corruption. Or undue means. (2) Where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators. Or either of them. (3) Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing. Or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced. (4) Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers. Defi nite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. (5) Where an award is vacated and the time within which the agreement required the award to be made has not expired the court may. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053321np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge At issue in this in rem forfeiture proceeding are bank accounts held by Shawn Wright and seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510543.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brought this action against the United States seeking the return of monetary instruments that were seized from its possession by the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept95/93-5102.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><sup>1</sup>The <i>Sea Falcon</i> also argues that: (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to increase the amount of security placed in the court's registry after the <i>Sea Falcon</i> had been released. (2) the district court erred in concluding that there was no damage done to the vessel while it was under arrest (and under the care of Bradford. The first issue is moot. We reject the <i>Sea Falcon</i> 's second argument without discussion. <i>See</i> 11th Cir.R. 36 1. <p> <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510110.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Superior was the general contractor for the Florida Department of Transportation's project to widen and expand the Blanding Boulevard Bridge (the Bridge) over the Cedar River in Jacksonville. For use of (1) a 128 An allision is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/96-6015.wpd.html">TOWERRIDGE, INC. V. T.A.O., INC.<BR></A><BR> 1997 Please be advised of the following correction to the captioned decision: The identification of the attorneys for Defendants Appellants and Cross Appellees is incorrect. I. BACKGROUND This action was brought by Towerridge. T.A.O. was the prime contractor on a construction project for the Oklahoma Air National Guard in Oklahoma City. Because the project was federally funded. T.A.O. was required under the Miller Act to post a payment bond to protect subcontractors and materialmen.(1) Co defendant Mid Continent Casualty Co. was the surety on the bond. The total subcontract price was $448. The subcontracted work was broken down into four line items: (1) concrete paving. T.A.O. was to make monthly progress payments to Towerridge for work satisfactorily completed. The appropriate percentage of each line item's scheduled value to which Towerridge was therefore entitled. T.A.O. was to pay Towerridge twenty percent of that line item's scheduled value. When Towerridge had completed ninety percent of a line item it was entitled to ninety percent of the scheduled value. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001537.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BARRETT Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The Y KNOT is capable of reaching fifty miles per hour. Her planing speed is approximately fifteen miles per hour. Although no official weather reports have been submitted. Holesapple was aware that the boat had left the ICW and was venturing into the Atlantic. Alleges that there was no discussion about the trip out of the ICW. Holesapple testified that she was terrified. There were approximately sixty to seventy other boats in sight. No verbal warning was given in the one to two seconds between when Pumphrey and Barrett saw the waves and when the Y KNOT hit the waves. Holesapple was standing near the front of the boat. Holesapple was thrown to the deck during the encounter. Decisions regarding admissibility of expert testimony are reviewed for abuse of discretion. That Riggleman's expert opinion in this matter was unreliable. The district court reasoned that the opinion was based purely on conjecture and post hoc reasoning. Was unsupported by scientific analysis. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0121n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Where there was also a marijuana growing room. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-1225.htm">98-1225 -- FISCHER IMAGING CORP. V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. -- 08/03/1999<BR></A><BR> The units are used in a medical imaging product produced by GE. Parties may </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyNzMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9273-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was a member of this panel and voted with the majority. This appeal is being decided by the remaining two members of the panel. Who are in agreement. While he was working on the barge RTC 501. He was injured when a fan in the engine room blew a small piece of metal into his eye. Noticing that his eye was inflamed. The position of the two vessels was such that Marcic was required to cross a small gap between the deck of the Stephen Reinauer and the deck of the Austin Reinauer in order to reach the dock. Alleging that defendants were negligent in failing to paint the rail of the Austin with paint containing a non skid additive. Which would have prevented plaintiff's foot from slipping. Which defendants contend was required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1748.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cicilline</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. Guez's claim was procedurally deficient. Guez was scheduled to fly on a commercial airline from the John F. Guez was carrying money to pay for a shipment of cocaine that had arrived at JFK from LMMIA on June 24. The first step towards retrieving seized property is to file a sworn claim of ownership with the agency that made the seizure here the DEA. 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(2)(A) (2003). Asserting that he was the owner of the $23. Copies of these motions were served on Rodrí. Although it was originally filed with the DEA and had not previously been before the court. <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B74DA6722D74865B88256E5A00707B28/$file/9935910.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm in part because we hold that (1) the economic damages findings are sufficiently detailed for appellate review. (2) the noneconomic damage awards are sufficient. We reverse and remand in part because we hold that Simeonoff was not contributorily negligent for responding to a cry for help. Simeonoff was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1471.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The lawyer and the client were in the middle of a fee argument. The trial was then continued on October 17 until November 7. A further series of reschedulings followed and trial was ultimately set for April 23. No resolution was reached on the fees.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-5117.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is. Appeals from the district court's dismissal of his complaint asserting a slander of title claim against the Tax (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. I. McNeil and his wife are the owners of a parcel of land located in Rogers County. McNeil asserted that it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1959.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hoch & McHugh were on brief for appellant. P.A. was on brief for Portsmouth Harbor Towing. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The Sea Hawk is a forty five foot Hatteras sport fishing boat built in 1974. Atlantic eventually went into receivership and was taken over by the Resolution Trust Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015305.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are not subject to the Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability Act. The question of whether the United States' claims brought pursuant to PSRPA are subject to the Limitation Act is one of first impression. If the limitation is granted. The vessel owner subsequently is found liable. It was entitled to all damages due to injuries to resources in the National Park as a result of the grounding.3 The relevant provisions of the PSRPA include: 16 U.S.C. § 19jj 1(a): [A]ny person who destroys. Or injures any park system resource is liable to the United States for the response costs and damages resulting from such destruction. As limitation is based on the post accident value of the vessel and its freight. Especially in cases in which the vessel sinks or the freight is lost. Or injury to the same extent as a person is liable under subsection (a) of this section. 16 U.S.C. § 19jj(c): </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2185.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude the claim should not have been stricken and vacate the judgment. One of which was a 1986 Pontiac Firebird. Who was then incarcerated in Leavenworth. No further document labelled as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CF7CCDB0A79D0EF3882573330054DD2A/$file/0515189.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: These are consolidated appeals in two diversity actions brought under Nevada law. Where the meaning is not clear from the context. The dealership repays GMAC the portion of the loan attributable to an individual vehicle when that vehicle is sold or leased. GMAC enters into a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/96-8972.man.html">FALANGA V. STATE BAR OF GEORGIA (8/19/1998, NO. 96-8972)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</P> <P> The principal issue in this case is whether Georgia's prohibiting lawyers and their agents from soliciting professional employment from potential clients face to face and without invitation survives First Amendment commercial speech scrutiny as applied to appellees/cross appellants. Who are licensed to practice law in and members of the State Bar of Georgia. Most of their clients are poor and uneducated. Uninvited solicitation are constitutional as applied to Falanga and Chalker.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013886.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Natco is engaged in the marine construction and dredging business. The crane was a landbased. 55 ton crawler crane that was to be secured to a barge named the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2DE4068E4963D57E88256E5A00707C30/$file/0055358.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to ascertain the rights and responsibilities of several entities in relation to four separate contracts for the transportation of ten shipping containers from California to Japan. Held that Yang Ming Marine Transport Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-6200.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0302p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was less than three feet deep at the point of Mr. His spinal column between the C4 and C5 levels was severed on impact. Realizing that her husband was in trouble. Screamed that he was not breathing. Sagan's breathing was impeded by water in his lungs. The United States Coast Guard arrived by boat and informed those present that a rescue helicopter was on its way and would take Mr. Sagan was secured to a backboard on the deck of the Algonac Fire and Rescue boat. Sagan immediately be taken to a hospital via an ambulance that was waiting a mile away from the boats. It was determined that the backboard to which Mr. Sagan had been secured was incompatible with the device needed to lift him to the helicopter. Sagan was transferred to the ambulance at approximately 1:46 a.m. He was unable to breathe effectively without ventilator assistance. Only to learn that they were in the wrong place. 1 No. 01 2568 Sagan. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9892ADA77A29562688256B5000602C74/$file/0135264.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a question of first impression in the Ninth Circuit. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of a seaman who was employed under a contract that the master did not sign. The district court held that the contract was invalid because the statute required this signature. The Seafreeze Alaska is a factory trawler that operates out of Alaska. It is undisputed that the vessel's master did not sign this contract. Primarily 1326 claiming that their contracts were defective.1 Harper moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether his contract was invalid under 46 U.S.C. § 10601. Because there was no evidence that the master had in any way participated in drafting the agreement. JURISDICTION We have jurisdiction in this interlocutory admiralty appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3).2 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1994/94a0912p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The scheme was discovered and defendants were found guilty and sentenced. These counts were based on telephone calls and mailings between Anne Scarlata ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/96-8972.man.html">FALANGA V. STATE BAR OF GEORGIA (8/19/1998, NO. 96-8972)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</P> <P> The principal issue in this case is whether Georgia's prohibiting lawyers and their agents from soliciting professional employment from potential clients face to face and without invitation survives First Amendment commercial speech scrutiny as applied to appellees/cross appellants. Who are licensed to practice law in and members of the State Bar of Georgia. Most of their clients are poor and uneducated. Uninvited solicitation are constitutional as applied to Falanga and Chalker.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-30522.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Which Plaintiffs assert was the foreseeable result of Omega's negligence. Plaintiffs appeal the district court's decision to grant summary judgment for Omega based on the finding that Omega owed no duty to the grandmother because her injury was not foreseeable. He was treated for a concussion and for pain in his back and neck. It appears that his mental problems may have been improperly diagnosed or untreated. Alleging that Pernell Crear's murder was a foreseeable result of Omega's negligence. Crear was prosecuted for the murder and found not guilty by reason of insanity. 2 1 Motion for Summary Judgment. Crear's mental problems were left untreated due to the actions of Omega. Omega's sole argument below was that the murder of Mr. Crear's grandmother was unforeseeable as a result of his head injury. Most of whom are plaintiffs in this action. Opining that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0272p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from an adverse judgment after trial in an action brought by Michael Huss for injuries sustained while employed by defendant King Company. As the boat was being hoisted by a crane off its cradle. While he was attempting to remove the rope. He was released to home. The two actions were consolidated. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. Because the rulings of the district court were not clearly erroneous and did not abuse its discretion. Huss was entitled to summary judgment on liability. A pretrial order entered in May 2001 A seaman who is injured while in service of a vessel is en titled to maintenance and cure at the expe nse of the vessel owner. Maintenance is a subsistence allowance designed to provide the seam an with compensation sufficient to pay for his food and lodging until the time of maximum cure. C ure is the e mplo yer's obligation to pay for medical expenses for an injured seaman. The obligation to pay maintenance and cure continues until the seaman is cured or. If there is permanent impa irment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981256.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 98 1256 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Admissible evidence to demonstrate that George was negligent. The Feltons were married at the time but had been living apart for approximately 18 months.1 While the Feltons dined across the bay at Mears Marina in Kent County. The weather was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/99-14643.man.html">FIREMAN'S FUND INS. CO. V. TROPICAL SHIPPING (6/19/2001, NO. 99-14643)<BR></A><BR> Arising out of the destruction of a mobile stage while it was being loaded for transport from the Port of Palm Beach to the island of St. Which the district court noted would have been approximately $64. If Tropical is correct. Tall Pony's recovery for property damage to the stage is limited to the $500 per package limitation provided under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2000/99-11321.opn.html">HIH MARINE SERVICES V. FRASER (5/19/2000, NO. 99-11321)<BR></A><BR> The appellants contend that the district court erred in its choice of law analysis and in its conclusion that the policy issued by HIH was void <U>ab</U> <U>initio</U>. Because we find that the district court was correct in holding that material misrepresentations voided any possible coverage available to the appellants. Although HIH was asked to cover the risk associated with a charter boat under the custody and control of Mobay. No chartering agreement between Mobay and the appellants was in effect at the time and Mobay did not have custody of the Netan El. When this was brought to HIH's attention. A revised endorsement was forwarded to HIH for formal execution. Was not acted upon immediately because of the press of other business. Fraser informed Mobay that he was negotiating with a prospective purchaser of the Netan El and that if the sale occurred. A fire broke out on the Netan El and the vessel was totally destroyed. No final charter agreement was in place between the appellants and Mobay. Mobay did not have custody of the vessel. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200202/00-5348a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wishod were on brief. Spitzer were on brief for amici curiae The American Legion. Acting United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief. The unauthorized release of her training record to a civilian author was not incident to service under Feres's case specific inquiry and that her suit against the Navy. Is not barred. Whether members of the armed forces may sue the mili tary for damages under the Privacy Act is a question of first impression. Completed flight training and became a Naval aviator.1 She was assigned to a flight squadron at the Naval Air Station. To observe Hornet training so that he could research a book he was writing about the training of fighter pilots. The book was based primarily upon Gandt's observations of the Hornet training program and upon Navy supplied information. That as a result of the book's publication </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510863.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For providing necessaries to a Greek flagged cruise vessel while the vessel was in a United States port. I. Introduction This case is properly introduced by another opinion of this court. 616.56 worth of existing food and beverage items already onboard the Vessel and in a shore side warehouse in Greece that were owned by OWC and ROC. Who was onboard for part of the voyage. Guglielmo provided food and beverage management services both while the Vessel was in Port Everglades. The Vessel made two cruises from Port Everglades: the first was from November 30. The second was from December 17. The proposed contract included several provisions that were either directly opposite Zernavi's proposals or had not yet been negotiated. Claiming that it was entitled to a maritime lien under the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-1390.htm">98-1390 -- U.S. V. 2687 S. DEFRAME CIRCLE -- 02/24/2000<BR></A><BR> He was sentenced to twenty seven months imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution to the victims of his scheme in the amount of $60. Birkholz was served with the warrant on October 22. Arguing that the initial claim was unverified and the Answer had not been filed within the time constraints of Rule C(6) of the Supplemental Rules Regarding Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2000/99-11321.opn.html">HIH MARINE SERVICES V. FRASER (5/19/2000, NO. 99-11321)<BR></A><BR> The appellants contend that the district court erred in its choice of law analysis and in its conclusion that the policy issued by HIH was void <U>ab</U> <U>initio</U>. Because we find that the district court was correct in holding that material misrepresentations voided any possible coverage available to the appellants. Although HIH was asked to cover the risk associated with a charter boat under the custody and control of Mobay. No chartering agreement between Mobay and the appellants was in effect at the time and Mobay did not have custody of the Netan El. When this was brought to HIH's attention. A revised endorsement was forwarded to HIH for formal execution. Was not acted upon immediately because of the press of other business. Fraser informed Mobay that he was negotiating with a prospective purchaser of the Netan El and that if the sale occurred. A fire broke out on the Netan El and the vessel was totally destroyed. No final charter agreement was in place between the appellants and Mobay. Mobay did not have custody of the vessel. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991359.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's order and find no reversible error. 1999).* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED Although the district court's order is marked as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4305.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that Deputy had not signed the Client Agreement and that in any event the arbitration clause was against public policy. Deputy's investment advisor was Frank Gruttadauria. Lehman Brothers contended that Deputy's claims were subject to arbitration based on an arbitration clause contained in its Client Agreement with Deputy. Both Marsh's expert report and Deputy's affidavit were submitted along with briefing on Lehman Brothers' Motion to Stay or Dismiss prior to the November 21. Beginning with the district court's initial comments on convening court: I'd like to commence the hearing by telling you what I expect to look at today and consider and to give you a preliminary view of how I have viewed the matters as submitted up to this point. . . . I've looked at the cases and have paid special attention to the decisions that were rendered in California and Ohio with respect to similar cases. I'm mindful of this Court's obligation as a doorkeeper with respect to opinion evidence and the need for parties offering opinion testimony to show that a particular discipline has been adhered to and that there is an objective slash scientific basis for certain types of opinion evidence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/96-4035.man.html">UNITED STATES V. 817 N.E. 29TH DRIVE (5/21/1999, NO. 96-4035)<BR></A><BR> We conclude that the Government is entitled to both parcels.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Charles Howerin was arrested by city police in October 1991 for selling cocaine out of his home in Wilton Manors. He was convicted in Florida court on drug possession and trafficking charges. Then answered the Government's complaint. <EM>See</EM> Supplemental Rule for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims C(6).<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/972512P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The tug was towing the barge from Carteret. Both the tug and barge were owned by Central Barge & Boat Co. It was aground and leaking gasoline through a gash in its hull. The Maya eventually lost control and was stranded with the barge. Both the tug and barge were eventually freed and the cargo of gasoline was transferred to another barge for completion of the voyage. 875 F.2d at 1353. Late a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 21 Both Apex Towing and Apex Oil were insured for this voyage by Plaintiff/Appellant American Home Assurance Co. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun21/03-30692-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court's rationale allows these debtors to have their cake and eat it too. As they retain the enormous benefit of a bankruptcy discharge while standing in line to receive funds from the injury lawsuit after the creditors are paid. Because judicial estoppel is designed to prevent such guile. BACKGROUND Arthur Hudspeath was allegedly 1999. The Hudspeaths were required to report. This information is specifically required The filings' on the debtors' schedules and statement of affairs. general purpose is to permit the court. The debtors are also obliged to update their schedules as necessary to assure full disclosure. While 2 their bankruptcy case was still pending. Take steps to have service on the defendant accomplished until some six months later. The Hudspeaths' bankruptcy was converted from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7. The Hudspeaths inaccurately informed the creditors that the suit was prescribed.1 Furthermore. Superior informed the bankruptcy trustee that Hudspeath was 1 Mrs. Hudspeath informed the bankruptcy trustee that the claim was barred by Louisiana's one year prescriptive period for tort actions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414208.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Without finding that lesser sanctions were somehow inadequate. I. Betty K is in the business of transporting marine cargo between Miami and Nassau. Tidal Wave filed an Emergency Motion stating that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2000/99-11417.man.html">HAIRSTON V. TRAVELERS CAS. & SUR. CO. (11/13/2000, NO. 99-11417)<BR></A><BR> Appellants appeal the district court's determination that the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over claims brought pursuant to National Flood Insurance Program ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982364.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. No affidavit of service was filed with the district court or served upon SRMC. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides in relevant part: If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint. 708 (4th Cir. 1993) (noting that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov95/95-4708.opa.html">ISBRANDTSEN MARINE SERVS. V. M/V INAGUA TANIA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Isbrandtsen Marine Servs. v. Senior District Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> Appellant Zuki Teria is a Panamanian Corporation. Zuki Teria also failed to pay for the consulting fees sought by IMS.<p> IMS executed on its maritime lien and the M/V INAGUA TANIA was arrested on March 1. There was no dispute that the vessel thereafter sailed from Fort Lauderdale and is no longer in the court's jurisdiction.<p> Appellant Zuki Teria brought this Interlocutory Appeal challenging the Order setting the bond amount. The Orders from which appellant Zuki Teria appeals are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412566.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct96/95-6885.opa.html">HUTCHINS V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hutchins v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct97/95-8459.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/96-4035.man.html">UNITED STATES V. 817 N.E. 29TH DRIVE (5/21/1999, NO. 96-4035)<BR></A><BR> We conclude that the Government is entitled to both parcels.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Charles Howerin was arrested by city police in October 1991 for selling cocaine out of his home in Wilton Manors. He was convicted in Florida court on drug possession and trafficking charges. Then answered the Government's complaint. <EM>See</EM> Supplemental Rule for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims C(6).<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2377.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Feldstein & Peirce and Dennis Roberts were on brief for appellees. Although plaintiffs obtained default judgments against the operator of the boat in which they were riding at the time of the accident. Was moored in Newport Harbor for the 1990 charter season. She was crewed by Captain Gordon Percy. Percy instructed Pannell that he was not to bring guests aboard the yacht. The DOLPHIN's 12 foot inflatable tender was to be left on deck. The public launch service (for which the DOLPHIN held a season's pass) was to be used for conveyance between the yacht and shore. As fate would have it. By this time it was after midnight and the public launch service was no longer operating. Default judgments were obtained by Favorito ($250. P. 50(a)(1) is subject to plenary review under the same stringent standard incumbent upon the trial court in the first instance: [W]e must examine the evidence and the inferences reasonably extractable therefrom in the light most hospitable to the nonmovant. Negligent Retention The first cause of action we address is a variant on the traditional tort of negligent hiring: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2179.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 8. Peltz Walker & Dubinsky were on brief for appellants. Dana & Gould were on brief for appellees. Is invalid under that statute. Or whether such a clause is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. That the arbitration clause is valid. The order of the district court staying this action pending arbitration in Tokyo is affirmed. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND Plaintiff appellant Bacchus Associates is a wholesale fruit distributor in the Northeast United States. Bacchus was the owner of a shipment of oranges travelling from Agadir. Is also a plaintiff appellant in this action. References to Bacchus include Vimar where applicable. 2 2 The oranges were shipped under a bill of lading issued in Morocco by Nichiro. Numerous boxes of oranges were crushed. The district court held that the arbitration clause contained in subsection (2) was enforceable. DISCUSSION DISCUSSION COGSA was passed in 1936 as the American enactment of the Hague Rules. Was part of an international effort to achieve uniformity and simplicity in bills of lading used in foreign trade. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2000/99-11417.man.html">HAIRSTON V. TRAVELERS CAS. & SUR. CO. (11/13/2000, NO. 99-11417)<BR></A><BR> Appellants appeal the district court's determination that the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over claims brought pursuant to National Flood Insurance Program ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov95/95-4708.opa.html">ISBRANDTSEN MARINE SERVS. V. M/V INAGUA TANIA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Isbrandtsen Marine Servs. v. Senior District Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> Appellant Zuki Teria is a Panamanian Corporation. Zuki Teria also failed to pay for the consulting fees sought by IMS.<p> IMS executed on its maritime lien and the M/V INAGUA TANIA was arrested on March 1. There was no dispute that the vessel thereafter sailed from Fort Lauderdale and is no longer in the court's jurisdiction.<p> Appellant Zuki Teria brought this Interlocutory Appeal challenging the Order setting the bond amount. The Orders from which appellant Zuki Teria appeals are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1543.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Miranda & Pinto were on brief for plaintiff. Bird & Hestres was on brief for defendant Luis A. Is applicable to an oil drilling rig requires the court to consider for the first time the COGSA related </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5348a.html">MARY LOUISE CUMMINGS V. DEPT. OF NAVY<BR></A><BR> Wishod were on brief. <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7013a.html">ALCABASA ALEXANDER V. KOREAN AIRLN CO LTD<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct96/95-6885.opa.html">HUTCHINS V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hutchins v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012434.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sergeant Paul Quill of the Maryland State Police stopped a Lincoln Town Car with Kansas tags as it was traveling west on Interstate 70 near Frederick. The installation job was of professional quality. He had seen many such secret compartments and knew they were routinely used by drug traffickers to transport large quantities of drugs as well as the cash proceeds from drug transactions. Mondragon was arrested for driving on a revoked license. Her purse was then searched. 900 in cash was found. She was released. Was turned over to the U.S. Seeking forfeiture of the currency on the ground that it was the proceeds of drug trafficking. Was involved in a money laundering transaction. Stating that she was without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the charging allegations. The government made a motion for summary judgment that was not opposed. Satisfies the particularity requirement of Rule E(2)(a) is a legal question that we review de novo. Rule E(2)(a) requires the complaint to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5039.html">INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/96-4430.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct97/95-8459.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1233.html">PRECISION SPECIALTY METALS, INC V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Sanctioned party appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With her on the brief were <u>Robert D. For misquoting and failing to quote fully from two judicial opinions in a motion for reconsideration she signed and filed.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </spa </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5055.html">DEL-RIO DRILLING V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216691.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that it did not contribute to the allision for it was not in violation of Navigational Rules. The appellees shrimp boat was caught in a fog en route to a fishing trip. The dis trict court's legal con clusions are subje ct to de no vo revie w. 649 (11th Cir. 1990) but the district 2 court's fa ctual find ings w ill not be d isturbed unless th ey are clear ly errone ous. There are four issues on appeal. Moored Anchoring is a subset of mooring. The traditional distinguishing factor of a moored vessel versus an anchored vessel has been that the former is moored to a permanent object su ch as a do ck or a p ier while the anch ored ve ssel is anch ored in o pen w ater. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001997.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Thompson alleges that negligent acts of Vane and the United States proximately caused him to fall from a rope ladder while he was attempting to climb from a tank barge to the U.S.S. The critical facts are undisputed and set forth in detail in the district court's opinion. Ponce was approximately six feet. The distance between the side port and the barge was 18 to 20 feet. He was wearing two layers of clothing. Which was one inch thick and served as a flotation device. Was carrying a 30 by 18 inch sea bag that contained clothing. The court specifically found that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001746.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> TRAENKLE Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The United States Marshal also was directed to sell the Honey Bear. Copies of the judgments and notice of the impending sale were sent to the Traenkles. The final deficiency judgment was not entitled to full faith and credit. The case was closed administratively on February 11. MNB's motion for summary judgment was denied as to the breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing counterclaim. The Traenkles contended that MNB breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by damaging the Honey Bear and allowing its condition to deteriorate while the boat was in MNB's possession prior to its sale. Commercial Law § 9 504(3) (1997) bars MNB from obtaining a deficiency judgment and that MNB should be deemed to have accepted the Honey Bear in full satisfaction of the Traenkle's obligation pursuant to Maryland Code Annotated. The district court found that the notice provision of § 9 504(3) did not apply because the Honey Bear was sold pursuant to the Ship Mortgage Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-30195.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM:* Formasa Plastics Corporation appeals the district court's determination that it did not have admiralty jurisdiction to hear this matter. The district court did not err in holding that it did not have admiralty jurisdiction over the claims. Once the district properly dismissed all of the claims which may have led to original jurisdiction. The decision of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052584np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the ruling of the District Court. We will forgo a lengthy recitation of the factual and legal background to this case. They were given no warnings by the Appellees beyond a general assurance that travel to the country was safe. They were not told of a Consular Information Sheet from the United States Department of State that included a warning about jet skiing in Mexico. 2 The transaction resulted in the Yurchaks purchasing a vacation package from the Appellees that included air travel to Cancun. Yurchak fell off her jet ski in the navigable waters off the coast of Cancun and was run over by another jet ski. Including their claim that the Appellees owed them a duty that was not limited by contract and that was sufficiently Although the Yurchaks only raise arguments regarding these claims. When considering whether a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss was properly granted. We will accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint. While a travel agent may have a duty to warn in some situations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C740557C88F27A1888256D3A00540B8C/$file/9956762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Were on the brief for cross appellees Jack Lawn. Were on the brief for amici curiae International Human Rights Organizations and International Law Scholars. That Alvarez </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/98-6223.opn.html">VENUS LINES AGENCY V. CVG INDUSTRIA VENEZOLANA DE ALUMINIO (4/25/2000, NO. 98-6223)<BR></A><BR> On the ground that the property was immune from attachment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Which was granted by the district court on March 4. Arrest and execution except as provided in sections 1610 and 1611 of this chapter. </P> <P>The issue is whether the exception to immunity in section 1610(d) regarding prejudgment attachment applies in this case. </P> <P> (2) The purpose of the attachment is to secure satisfaction of a judgment that has been or may ultimately be entered against the foreign state. The parties do not dispute that Venalum is considered a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D534390583B882F88256C380004FE18/$file/0056603.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Total Myanmar was appointed Operator of the Gas Production Joint Venture and the Gas Transportation Company. Total Myanmar was responsible. For </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B5C48361C2227AE988256D3C0071BFD2/$file/9810159.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Cabaccangs' primary contention on appeal is that the transport of drugs on a nonstop flight from one location within the United States to another does not constitute importation within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a). The Cabaccangs were indicted in 1997 on numerous charges relating to their involvement in the methamphetamine ring. Stating that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B30A89FBBFA56B3188256D95005C16DE/$file/0035988.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Eric Noel and Sandra and Brian Hall are no strangers to the inside of a courtroom. This lawsuit is the fifth between Noel and Sandra Hall. On the ground that they should have been asserted as compulsory counterclaims in earlier statecourt litigation. Sell Red Hot Prospect a horse that was no such thing. Sandra Hall's last name was Johnson. A. State Court Litigation The unhappy collaboration between Sandra Hall and Noel resulted in four suits litigated in Washington State courts (a fifth suit was filed but never litigated): two actions concerning the mobile home in the small claims department of the Clark County District Court (eventually consolidated on appeal). Small Claims Suits Concerning the Mobile Home Two separate actions related to the mobile home were litigated in the small claims department of the district court in Clark County. Skamania County Superior Court Suit Concerning the Investment in Red While the mobile home suits were pending against him. (The Clark County suit is discussed below.). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D82753A69B33EB1A8825725100007FB5/$file/0435655.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044335p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a negligence suit under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-1514.htm">99-1514 -- U.S. V. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO. -- 07/18/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> In this case. We disagree. <p> Process was served on Ms. Those motions were granted by the district court. <p> Upon a showing of excusable neglect. P. 6(b)(2). </em>The determination of whether to allow a late filing is an equitable matter. There was no abuse of discretion in the district court's refusal to allow such a late filing. <p> The judgment of the United States District Court for the <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/94071F253541AD0688256AA7005BA101/$file/0035157.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For convenience we will refer to the Vessel as the party opposing the in rem proceeding. 10769 BACKGROUND The Coast Guard issued the Certificate on April 4. The Certificate was issued pursuant to 46 U.S.C. §§ 12101 12122. The fishery endorsement that was given to the Vessel entitled it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/99-5163.htm">99-5163 -- FIRST MARINE INSURANCE CO. V. SCOTT -- 09/18/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> This appeal presents a boat insurance issue arising in a declaratory judgment action. Was mostly cosmetic damage. The court held that the policy language supported First Marine's view of the case and that First Marine was entitled to summary judgment. The court was not persuaded by the Scotts' argument that the agent's letter confirming that the boat was underinsured affected the valuation provision of the policy. It was also not persuaded by the Scotts' argument that the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/81F608F9B1E4C9CF88256B7E006D3ADC/$file/0016772.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide whether the litigation position of the United States Department of Justice was substantially jus4381 tified when it continued to advance a forfeiture claim after the Supreme Court clarified the law to the contrary. Which was not recorded until January 24. The fair market value of the property was between $590. The purchasers then moved to dismiss the government's forfeiture complaint or for summary judgment under Rule C(6) of the Rules of Admiralty.2 Although the purchasers' claims were untimely. The United States's) 2 In rem forfeitures are conducted in accordance with the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims. Which was January 24. (3) they were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/22AAC080FA52B74588256F7100828336/$file/0356681.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2004 is amended as follows: At slip op. The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. Holding that they do in fact have a cognizable legal interest in the property. The facts of the fraud alleged by the government are undisputed by the Appellants. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1773.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Monospace </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-7139.htm">02-7139 -- STATE OF OKLAHOMA V. MAGNOLIA MARINE TRANSPORT CO. -- 02/24/2004<BR></A><BR> (2) the specific basis for federal question jurisdiction relied on by the district court was insufficient to support removal. The tugboat was owned and operated by defendant Magnolia Marine Transport Company. Was under the command of defendant William Joe Dedmon at the time of the accident. <p> Shortly after the state action was commenced. Holding that the State's action for damages caused by a commercial vessel on navigable waters was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199911321.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appellants contend that the district court erred in its choice of law analysis and in its conclusion that the policy issued by HIH was void ab initio. Because we find that the district court was correct in holding that material misrepresentations voided any possible coverage available to the appellants. Was originally a party to this case. Was voluntarily dismissed by HIH prior to any appearance in the action. 1 the operation. Although HIH was asked to cover the risk associated with a charter boat under the custody and control of Mobay. No chartering agreement between Mobay and the appellants was in effect at the time and Mobay did not have custody of the Netan El. When this was brought to HIH's attention. A revised endorsement was forwarded to HIH for formal execution. Was not acted upon immediately because of the press of other business. Fraser informed Mobay that he was negotiating with a prospective purchaser of the Netan El and that if the sale occurred. A fire broke out on the Netan El and the vessel was totally destroyed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1173.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Monospace </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986223.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the ground that the property was immune from attachment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Which was granted by the district court on March 4. The issue is whether the exception to immunity in section 1610(d) regarding prejudgment attachment applies in this case. (2) The purpose of the attachment is to secure satisfaction of a judgment that has been or may ultimately be entered against the foreign state. The parties do not dispute that Venalum is considered a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986223.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the ground that the property was immune from attachment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Which was granted by the district court on March 4. The issue is whether the exception to immunity in section 1610(d) regarding prejudgment attachment applies in this case. 2 (2) The purpose of the attachment is to secure satisfaction of a judgment that has been or may ultimately be entered against the foreign state. The parties do not dispute that Venalum is considered a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/98-4922.man.html">GALEHEAD, INC. V. M/V ANGLIA (8/9/1999, NO. 98-4922)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge.</P> <P> PER CURIAM:</P> <P> This case is about maritime liens. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E5A717CDE73C8F1A88256EB4005B5764/$file/0216221.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Excess sedimentary deposits required the ship to return to the Port and remain docked for 45 days while the channel was dredged. Was a compulsory counterclaim according to Rule 13(a). So should have been filed in the initial contract action. The Port asserts that its entitlement to attorneys' fees was wholly contingent upon its success in the contract case. The Port argues that it was error to dismiss because it could not have filed a counterclaim in the prior case at all. Each party has assumed that some form of initial pleading either a complaint or a counterclaim is the appropriate manner by which the Port should seek its costs. Such is not generally the case in our federal system. The Rules make clear that pleadings and motions are distinct. Have filed a counterclaim or a complaint at all. Is whether the exception applies. 1296 97 (9th Cir. 1997) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2137_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Coverage was barred as a matter of law. Sustained burns over sixty five percent of his body after his clothes ignited while he was cleaning paint equipment with flammable thinner on Corn Island's premises. Fremont was responsible for both Williams's medical expenses and the 1 A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/062674P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree with the district court that these claims are not The Honorable Ross A. That the state law claims are preempted by the federal statute. The Trust is governed by ERISA. Which is regulated by the Department of Labor (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/06/022502P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That Paragon was liable under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and as a bailee. When a collision is caused by a vessel drifting from her moorings. The moving vessel is presumed to be at fault unless affirmative proof shows an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031609np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. I. Plaintiff Sheriff Saudi was employed as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/96-4430.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19964430.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was a passenger on Lufthansa Flight 463. Samuel Fischmann was best suited to handle the situation. Precisely what symptoms either were evident to Dr. Fischmann or were conveyed to Dr. Fischmann by Krys is a matter of some dispute. We resolve appellant's challenge to these fact findings in our discussion below. 1 * concluded after his initial examination of the patient that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1153.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May18/03-60131-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * injury was covered by the LHWCA. Holding that We the platform was not a covered situs under 33 U.S.C. § 903(a). have jurisdiction pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 921(c). Which was used to transport employees from Venice. Is accessible only by vessel. above. Thibodeaux injured himself after observing that a discharge line located five feet below the deck of the platform was leaking oil. Upon determining that he could better inspect the line from There are docking areas for the two water craft noted a small wooden platform below the deck and adjacent to the line. An ALJ held Thibodeaux was covered by the LHWCA as he was a maritime employee and his injury occurred on a pier. Reasoning that the oil production platform was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/022639P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court1 found that venue for Mike's limitation proceeding was proper only in the Southern District of Illinois and dismissed the case without prejudice. Venue lies </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2004.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After the loading was completed. The district court found that the contract unambiguously stated that FMT was to be paid by the volume of peat handled. The court also rejected Worcester Peat's counterclaim for peat it alleges was lost during the loading process.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956885.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 was barred by the exclusivity provision of the Federal Employees Compensation Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/98-4922.man.html">GALEHEAD, INC. V. M/V ANGLIA (8/9/1999, NO. 98-4922)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge.</P> <P> PER CURIAM:</P> <P> This case is about maritime liens. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/031609np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. I. Plaintiff Sheriff Saudi was employed as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2003/021839p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The United States seeks forfeiture of the funds because they are the proceeds of illegal heroin trafficking. Jalal contends that the action should be dismissed because it was not filed within the five year statute of limitations period under 19 U.S.C. § 1621. Because the statute of limitations was tolled during the time the funds were absent from the United States. Which altogether contain approximately $1.8 million Dirhams.1 The bank records indicate that the Defendant Accounts were funded between November 24. Jalal was subsequently indicted for Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess Heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Although all deposits to the Defendant bank accounts had been made during the time period in which Jalal was engaged in heroin trafficking and although he had no other legitimate source of income during that period. Jalal was sentenced to 108 months imprisonment. Was committed to the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The Dirham is the monetary unit of the U.A.E. Where the Defendant Accounts are located. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/94-3326.htm">94-3326 -- U.S. V. ONE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 41, BERRYHILL FARM ESTATES -- 10/29/1997<BR></A><BR> Dunmore contends the district court's grant of summary judgment is subject to reversal on any of the following grounds: (1) the forfeiture violated the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. (3) the warrant for the arrest of personal property was a general warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. (4) the forfeiture of personal property was constitutionally excessive. (5) the United States' conduct in prosecuting this civil forfeiture action was fundamentally unfair in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTYzNzMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6373-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. The subpoenas were issued by an arbitration panel presiding over an arbitral proceeding to which neither Stolt nor its former counsel is a party. We have previously stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTYzNzMtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-6373-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. The subpoenas were issued by an arbitration panel presiding over an arbitral proceeding to which neither Stolt nor its former counsel is a party. We have previously stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct97/94-3326.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. LOT 41, BERRYHILL FARM ESTATES<BR></A><BR> Dunmore contends the district court's grant of summary judgment is subject to reversal on any of the following grounds: (1) the forfeiture violated the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. (3) the warrant for the arrest of personal property was a general warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. (4) the forfeiture of personal property was constitutionally excessive. (5) the United States' conduct in prosecuting this civil forfeiture action was fundamentally unfair in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/023236p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is an appellee and is participating in this appeal. Certain other parties that have been dismissed from the action or are not participating in the appeal. As the parties have done in their briefs. As a matter of convenience we will treat him as the sole appellant in this opinion referring to him as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0142p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Where Plaintiff was employed as a cook. Plaintiff was cleaning the kitchen after having served the crew breakfast. The inside of the can was greasy. Which was not hot. Solid floor mat on which Plaintiff was standing. She would not have dropped the grease can if she had been allowed to place it in a container with handles. She would not have slipped if the mat had contained holes to re direct the grease. Huston testified at his deposition that Defendants should have placed a grease mat in the kitchen because spills in a kitchen are foreseeable and unavoidable. Huston testified that Defendants should have provided Plaintiff with a grease container that had a handle. Grease containers with handles are commercially available. Huston testified that it was his opinion that Defendants' failure to provide grease mats and a container with a handle made Plaintiff's accident more likely. A container with a handle would have decreased the likelihood of spills and a grease mat would have substantially decreased the likelihood of accidents from spilled liquid by containing and diverting the liquid. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1955p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Once its hopper compartments were full. The dredge would secure itself to a pipe attached to the scots buoy which in turn was connected to the submersible line. When he was unemployed. 3 and that the shore gang was already in place when he arrived to work at Cape May. Testified that he was employed primarily on the navigable waters off Cape May. Oldham testified that Shade was on the water 90% of the time that he worked at the Cape May project. The scots buoy was in place. It was not able to pump the sand to the beach because of a hole in the submersible line. Contended that during poor weather he would work in the harbor which was protected from the rough seas. Great Lakes offered testimony that when the dredge was able to pump sand to the beach. While Oldham was operating the loader. Shade testified that even though doctors were able to reattach his thumb. Great Lakes filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Shade was not a seaman. P. 50 for a judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the evidence did not establish that Shade was a seaman at the time of his injury. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0400p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A disease he claims was caused by exposure to asbestos released from products manufactured by defendants appellees. I. Lindstrom was employed from 1963 until 1994 as a merchant seaman. Lindstrom was allegedly exposed to many pieces of equipment that contained asbestos. Lindstrom was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma of the peritoneum in October 1999 and died of this disease on June 15. Peebles were appointed as administrators of Lindstrom's estate and were substituted as plaintiffs. Only the products liability claims are at issue in this appeal. Summary judgment is appropriate where </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60949.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Maritrans appeals the district court's finding on lost profits and the court's amending of its judgment five months after it was entered. The shipowner is entitled to recover lost profits upon a showing that its </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1724p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are here asked to resolve whether under Pennsylvania law a commercial purchaser of a pre engineered warehouse may recover in tort from the manufacturer of the warehouse for damage caused to its contents when the warehouse collapsed. We will reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment for the manufacturer and remand for further proceedings. I. Plaintiff appellant 2 J Corporation is a New Jersey corporation engaged in retail sales of spas. The warehouse was destroyed. Inventory and other items that 2 J was storing in the warehouse at the time of the collapse were also destroyed. Arguing that tort recovery was barred by the economic loss doctrine. Jewell urged that summary judgment was appropriate because the warranty had expired by the time the warehouse collapsed. These claims were still pending before the district court following its ruling on Jewell's summary judgment motion. Since there was no final. 2 J's notice of appeal was premature. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1724p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: <br wp= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1997/97a1742p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PERSONS UNKNOWN WHO HAVE ATTEMPTED TO OBSTRUCT CONSTRUCTION WORK ON PLAINTIFF'S LAND. A crucial issue is the location of certain boundary lines. We will affirm the district court's order as certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The order was certified as final within the terms of Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). The facts and disputes presented in this case are complex and multifarious. We will recite only those facts essential to deciding the issues on appeal. At stake were the title to and boundaries of parcels located in the Hansen Bay and Newfound Bay Estates in the East End Quarter of St. John.1 Included in the relief requested was the appointment of Eric Christian as Administrator of the Estate of James George Sewer. To Danish Colonial times when the rural parts of the Virgin Islands were divided into large tracts for agricultural purposes called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1997/97a1742p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PERSONS UNKNOWN WHO HAVE <p>ATTEMPTED TO OBSTRUCT CONSTRUCTION WORK ON <p>PLAINTIFF'S LAND. A <p>crucial issue is the location of certain boundary lines. <p>Under the unique circumstances presented here. We will affirm the district court's <p>order as certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure <p>54(b). <br wp= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0888p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This personal injury action was filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the Jones Act. The plaintiff was a scuba diving instructor who received injuries from a diving accident that took place in the coastal waters of St. [fn1] the district court reduced the verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the theory that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Because we will reverse the order of the district court which concluded there was subject matter jurisdiction. Neely was offered a position at the Club Med resort. On board the vessel was Neely (who was acting in her capacity as a dive instructor). The guests were instructed to put on their diving gear and await the signal from the Dive Master before entering the water. Defendants insist that the signal was never given. While (unknown to the captain of the Long John) Neely was in the water. She reappeared on the starboard side of the boat and was rescued by the other dive instructor. B. Procedural Background Plaintiff Neely is a United States citizen who resides in Pennsylvania. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA1MDAtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0500-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding Rocco Morganti ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1533.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That a district court does not have the authority under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1487.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bond</U> and <U>The Kaplan/Bond Group</U> were on brief. Arnold LLP</U> were on brief. Who was doomed to tell the same tale over and over again. Declare his floating work platform a dredge engaged in the excavation of a tunnel in the Boston Harbor to be a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/98-6223.opn.html">VENUS LINES AGENCY V. CVG INDUSTRIA VENEZOLANA DE ALUMINIO (4/25/2000, NO. 98-6223)<BR></A><BR> On the ground that the property was immune from attachment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Which was granted by the district court on March 4. Arrest and execution except as provided in sections 1610 and 1611 of this chapter. </P> <P>The issue is whether the exception to immunity in section 1610(d) regarding prejudgment attachment applies in this case. </P> <P> (2) The purpose of the attachment is to secure satisfaction of a judgment that has been or may ultimately be entered against the foreign state. The parties do not dispute that Venalum is considered a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1054.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The incident spawned a wrongful death claim on behalf of a crew member who was lost at sea. The case was heard on cross motions for summary judgment. Concluded that Mariner's position was well taken. The essential facts are not in dispute. Morse's stint as captain was brief. One was lost and one was injured. Mariner balked at paying the wrongful death and bodily injury claims in full when it learned that four men were aboard the ship at the time of the accident. This case is no different. The critical provision is the Crew Warranty clause. It is warranted that coverage hereunder is provided for not more than three (3) crew members aboard the insured vessel at any one time. Warranted that in the event additional crew are to be covered hereunder. The Assured shall give prior notice to this Company and pay such additional premium as is required. If the Assured shall fail to give such prior notice and at the time of loss with respect to crew there are more crew on board. Mariner maintains that the word is unambiguous and that its common meaning includes the entire complement of individuals working aboard a vessel in any capacity (e.g. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2369.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief. Because the district court found that the City's failure to maintain a fendering system on the damaged side of the bridge was also a proximate cause of the damages. Appellants challenge the district court's findings that appellants were negligent and that their negligence was a proximate cause of the damages claimed. District court determinations of negligence and proximate cause are reviewed for clear error. The district court's finding that appellants were negligent is not clearly erroneous. The undisputed evidence was that the two tugs were preparing to guide the barge through the draw span and had properly lined up the barge to enter the span when one of the tugs. Who was aboard the barge when it struck the bridge. Who was in command of the entire flotilla. Testified that the exercise of judgment aboard the TIBBETTS was negligent and that it was negligent of the flotilla to fail to properly direct the TIBBETTS. The district court's finding that the course change was negligent can hardly be described as clearly erroneous. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0738p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reeves was in the process of cleaning with a hose the cutter head on the dredging ship. Reeves was thrown off the dredge onto a blacktop ramp four to six feet below. The Becky Beth was assigned to a non navigable lake entirely within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Reeves argues that under the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/00-12619.man.html">ESPINAL V. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES (6/8/2001, NO. 00-12619)<BR></A><BR> Judge.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E6D1A9370ECEA57D88256E5A00707C49/$file/0035157.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For convenience we will refer to the Vessel as the party opposing the in rem proceeding. 10769 BACKGROUND The Coast Guard issued the Certificate on April 4. The Certificate was issued pursuant to 46 U.S.C. §§ 12101 12122. The fishery endorsement that was given to the Vessel entitled it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/99-14643.man.html">FIREMAN'S FUND INS. CO. V. TROPICAL SHIPPING (6/19/2001, NO. 99-14643)<BR></A><BR> Arising out of the destruction of a mobile stage while it was being loaded for transport from the Port of Palm Beach to the island of St. Which the district court noted would have been approximately $64. If Tropical is correct. Tall Pony's recovery for property damage to the stage is limited to the $500 per package limitation provided under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1804.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for Maritime Overseas Corporation and Cambridge Tankers. Were on brief for Eric Wilson. Was injured during a voyage as he attempted to repair hydraulic fluid lines that were leaking inside one of the main cargo holds. Was employed as a chief mate by Maritime Overseas Corporation on the M/T OVERSEAS BOSTON. Which was owned. The OVERSEAS BOSTON was approximately 75 miles off the western coast of Mexico on its way to Valdez. The plaintiff was in a Zodiac inflatable raft in the vessel's No. 2 center cargo tank ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1776.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. was on brief for defendant. Anderson with whom Latti Associates LLP was on brief for plaintiff. Ford was an able bodied seaman employed on the Steamship Authority's M/V Eagle. The Eagle was laid up for general maintenance in Woods Hole. Was with him. Costa was holding a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1214p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that the action was not time barred and that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May18/02-31068-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The motion is GRANTED. The previous order of dismissal is withdrawn. The following opinion is entered in lieu thereof. The owner of the ship on which he was injured. Appellants removed to federal court on the grounds that their dispute with Dahiya was subject to an arbitration agreement governed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1997/97a1553p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was incorporated in Delaware. It </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2106.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Heisler & Piampiano was on brief for petitioners Bath Iron Works Corporation and Birmingham Fire Insurance Company. Hanson & DeTroy was on brief for insurer respondent Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Lupton & Weiss was on brief for claimant respondent Alvin D. We hold that the federal award was barred by collateral estoppel. The events and procedural history are complicated. A condensed version will set the scene. In 1984 he was transferred to a desk job. Was awarded 25 percent partial disability benefits. Bath's company physician told Acord that he was being let go. The record is murky but it was apparently Acord's own opinion that the coming winter would aggravate his knee. It was the doctor's view that there would be no suitable work available if Acord's physical restrictions increased. Began to pay Acord total disability benefits when he was dismissed in November 1988. This decision was affirmed by the commission's appellate division in September 1990. It is not uncommon for employees connected to maritime affairs to be covered by both federal and state compensation statutes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/00-12619.man.html">ESPINAL V. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES (6/8/2001, NO. 00-12619)<BR></A><BR> Judge.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2361.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr.\ (former Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of\ Environmental Protection) have been substituted with Deval Patrick\ and Arleen O\'Donnell (Acting Commissioner of the Massachusetts\ Department of Environmental Protection) in both No. 06 2361 and No.\ 06 2362. <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8013E33CBB42F83888256B5300002992/$file/0035922.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Christensen is a longshoreman who was injured while helping to retie a ship that had broken free from the dock. The injury was not a foreseeable result of appellees' acts. The ship was longer than the 1601 dock. Arrived at the Georgia Pacific dock and tied two mooring lines to the same Georgia Pacific cleat to which Asian Hawk was tied. Christensen was sitting in his truck on his dinner break when the ship broke away from the dock and started drifting into Coos Bay. Claiming that the ship was negligent when it tied to the same cleat as Asian Hawk. The court held that Southern 1 The federal question jurisdiction was based on the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). Holding that their acts were also not proximate causes of Christensen's injury. We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. 3 A. That act allows a longshoreman who is injured during the course of his employment to be compensated by his employer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2103.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1528o.html">MARINE LOGISTICS, INC V. GORDON ENGLAND<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1776.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. United States Attorney was on brief for appellee. Claimant Claire Soule seeks costs and attorneys' fees incurred in recovering $2450 in cash which was seized in a drug raid on her home. United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents received information that 1500 pounds of marijuana were to be delivered to Jeffrey Soule at 255 Broadway in Hanover. Search warrants were obtained for the premises. 500 in cash found in a gym bag beside the bed in which John Jeffrey Soule was sleeping. Only this last item is at issue in this appeal. By reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without knowledge or consent of that owner. 3 3 seized cash.3 Claire Soule responded on June 14. A default judgment of forfeiture was entered against the lots of $874. The district court held a hearing at which the government was asked to show probable cause for the forfeiture of the money found in the five envelopes inside the hutch. The warrant and monition in this case was issued pursuant to these Supplemental Rules. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-13156.man.html">RESNICK V. UCCELLO IMMOBILIEN GMBH (9/22/2000, NO. 99-13156)<BR></A><BR> Because the liquidated damages award was punitive. Was still able to transact his business in the building. An error of law is an abuse of discretion </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1659.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 12. Delete </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept95/94-6650.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/96-6833.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1385.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellants Jorge G mez Olarte and Alejandro Rojano Rangel. Were on brief for appellee. I I The facts are set forth in the light most favorable to the government. 1 were on board a forty three foot sports fisherman. All appellants are Colombian nationals. They were intercepted by the U.S.S. BIDDLE was charged with boarding northbound vessels of less than four hundred feet as part of the government's drug interdiction program. BIDDLE were to conduct the boardings and investigations.3 Following standard procedure. Was acquitted at trial. 2 The parties stipulated that the vessel was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 3 Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 379(a) (Supp. 1992). They also conducted a so called space accountability search to ensure that the vessel was not compartmentalized secretly for smuggling. Stated that Roberto de Armas owned the vessel and that appellants were employed to bring the boat from Colombia to St. No contraband was discovered. (2) that appellants were from a known drug source country. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1247.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee. The sole issue in this forfeiture case is whether the district court abused its discretion in striking the claim of appellant Miriam Ruth Gelabert Alvarez to the forfeited properties because it was filed out of time. The claimant of property Interrogatories. that is the subject of an action in rem shall file a claim within 10 days after process has been executed. The claimant appellant did not file her claim until thirty seven days after process was executed. Our assessment of whether the district court abused its discretion is made in light of the facts available to the trial judge. The forfeiture proceeding was commenced by the government on March 7. Claimant was personally notified of the forfeiture proceedings on March 27. Notice was also given by publication in El Nuevo Dia. This was thirty seven days after claimant had received personal notice of the forfeiture proceedings at the United States Marshal's Office. There were other facts available to the court bearing on the question of abuse of discretion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2002/01-11072.opn.html">ESFELD V. COSTA CROCIERE, S.P.A. (4/30/2002, NO. 01-11072)<BR></A><BR> The question on appeal is whether. Appellants are three elderly married couples who were injured in the accident. All three couples are United States citizens. The Appellants were on a Western Pacific cruise that had begun in Singapore and was set to terminate in Hong Kong. The cruise ship upon which they were traveling. Was owned and operated by Costa.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr95/93-8981.opa.html">SMITH V. AMERICAN INTL. LIFE ASSURANCE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Smith v. The only issue worthy of discussion is whether the district court erred in utilizing a 12% pre judgment interest rate.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/95-2192.opa.html">BOUCHARD TRANSP. CO. V. FLORIDA DEPT. OF ENV. PROTECTION<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bouchard Transp. The district court either declined to rule or deferred ruling on various motions in which DEP argued it was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Two tug barge flotillas and a freighter were involved in a collision near Tampa Bay. Was served with notice in all three limitation actions.<p> DEP filed answers and affirmative claims for relief under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. A motions panel of this court held that the district court's order compelling DEP to participate in mediation was immediately appealable. We agree. <i>See</i> 11th Cir.R. 27 1(f) (ruling of a motions panel is not binding on panel to which case is assigned for disposition on merits). DEP argues that we have jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court's order rejected its assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity. <i>See Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v. We have jurisdiction to review the court's order directing DEP to mediate. <i>See Collins v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1032.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We find that we have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Sekenski's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC] was appointed receiver for the Bank. N.A. . . . have been duly presented to 2 and disallowed by the FDIC. This includes those who are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=90-2227.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief for appellee. Appellants do not deny that there was a settlement. Two issues are raised by appellants: whether the district court abused its discretion by including within the settlement order a provision terminating plaintiff Glenn Burke's right to maintenance and cure in the future. A complaint was filed by plaintiffs in the United States District Court for Massachusetts. It alleged that Glenn Burke was injured while employed as a seaman on the fishing vessel. The complaint was filed by Attorney Timothy Foster of the Law Offices of Robert T. No action was taken on the motion. Attorney Foster of Bancroft and Foster was the same attorney who filed the complaint on behalf of the law offices of Robert T. Was not acted upon. A so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=90-1957.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 2. William Shakespeare tells us in a famous passage from Romeo and Juliet that labels are not important. Rather that content is what counts.6 In more recent times. The BETTY F is thus a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2822.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug09/03-20226-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> OTSI is an independent contractor that supplies experienced personnel. The stated purpose of which was to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1503.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An unseaworthy condition exists\ when a vessel or its appurtenances are not reasonably fit for their\ intended purposes. The\ right to recover maintenance and cure is generally without any\ regard to fault. 99 F.3d 449 (1st\ Cir. 1996).</p>\ </span>' var WPFootnote2 = '<span class= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1016.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </span>Whenever property is arrested or attached. Such an error would have been harmless in the circumstances\ at hand.</p>\ </span>' var WPFootnote4 = '<span class= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1751.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. Intentionally or criminally caused or incurred by an insured person </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1183.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> III</SPAN> was on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2625.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2143.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Lewis LLP</SPAN> was on brief. Brought by a company whose hazardous waste was deposited at the Picillo site against a group of people who were involved with the site.</P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/95-6267.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. TWO PARCELS OF REAL PROP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The complaints should have been dismissed because the conclusory allegations did not comply with the strict pleading requirements in forfeiture cases.<p> 2. Or should have resulted in a summary judgment for claimants.<p> 3. The court improperly considered the claimants' invocation of the Fifth Amendment in response to discovery questions in concluding there was probable cause for forfeiture.<p> Finding no merit to any of these assignments of error. We affirm.<p> Law of Forfeiture<p> <p> Federal statutes provide that property is forfeited to the Government when it is used or intended to be used to facilitate illegal drug activities. Then it is the Government's burden to show probable cause for the belief that the property to be forfeited is substantially connected to drug dealing. 21 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1551.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. The Commonwealth's core contention is that the 1991 Civil Rights Act fails validly to abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity insofar as the Act authorizes the imposition of compensatory damages in Title VII actions against the States (and against Puerto Rico. Which is considered the functional equivalent of a State for Eleventh Amendment purposes). One that falls beyond our purview.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1206.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs in the district court were Tó. The defendants were R.K. What follows is a bare bones summary of the background events and trial.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2337.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O'Keefe</SPAN> was on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/97-5144.man.html">LIPCON V. UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON (8/5/1998, NO. 97-5144)<BR></A><BR> We are confronted with the important question of whether the anti waiver provisions of the United States securities laws preclude enforcement of certain choice of law and forum selection clauses ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-30352.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. As the monocal was being discharged from a river barge into its warehouse in Dubuque. Cargill's theory of the case is that when the monocal was being transferred to the river barges in Davant. A Bobcat sweeper used in the transfer was the source of the contaminants. The company it hired to inspect the cargo holds to determine whether they were clean and fit to receive the cargo. The district court concluded that Cargill had failed to meet its burden of establishing the source of the contamination and was therefore unable to prove that any negligent acts by either Electro Coal. The factual findings are binding unless clearly erroneous. Proximate cause are findings of fact. While its determination of the existence of a legal duty is a question of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5051.html">MASSIE JILL K V. USA<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were Frank W. Alleging that Autumn's injuries were caused by medical malpractice. Or subrogated interests </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1027.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Anderson LLP</U> was on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2398.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLC</SPAN> was on brief. Will &. Were on brief. No permit was forthcoming. I. While the suit was pending. We hold that the Fish Pier is a non public forum. That the leafletting ban which is content neutral and reasonable in light of the uses to which the pier is put is a valid exercise of governmental authority. We hold that Massport's permit requirement is valid on its face: the neoteric regulations sufficiently limit official discretion and the restrictions imposed are both content neutral and narrowly tailored.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2142.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arroyo</U> were on brief for appellee.</FONT></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1909.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Associates</SPAN> was on brief. Solicitor were on brief. Knott's Riverdale Mills Project ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1231.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. We vacate the district court's dismissal and remand the case for further proceedings.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/033205np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court had jurisdiction in this admiralty action under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 and we have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(A). We will exercise plenary review on this appeal as we are deciding the case through the application of legal principles on the basis of essentially undisputed facts. The parties have engaged in extensive discovery from the time of the filing of Plaintiff's Complaint until its notice to Defendants of its intent 2 to arbitrate on February 28. 980 F.2d 912 (3d Cir. 1992) (explaining that waiver is appropriate where the `demand for arbitration came long after the suit commenced and when both parties had engaged in extensive discovery'). Pa. 2000) (holding that defendant waived its right to arbitration where there was substantial delay in asserting its arbitration rights thereby causing prejudice to Plaintiff). We also are satisfied that the scheduling order of February 25. Providing that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/97-6354.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR HIGHWAY 195(12/31/1998, NO. 97-6354)<BR></A><BR> Woods contends that summary judgment should not have been granted because (a) she did not receive proper notice of the forfeiture action and (b) there are disputed material facts concerning the posting of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/97-8899.man.html">KOBATAKE V. DUPONT DE NEMOURS (12/3/1998, NO. 97-8899)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge.</P> <P> PER CURIAM:</P> <P> The judgement in this case is affirmed for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough and well reasoned order filed on July 18. Senior District Judge:</P> <P> These related actions are before the court on defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints in both litigations. Plaintiffs rely on the same legal theories in both cases to counter defendants' argument.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </P> <P> Plaintiffs are nursery owners whose plants were allegedly damaged by Benlate 50DF. While the jury was deliberating. (3) any and all claims which might have been alleged. Or which were alleged. Which provide that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-3765.man.html">ASSOCIATED TRANSP. LINE, INC. V. PRODUCTOS FITOSANITARIOS PROFICOL EL CARMEN, S.A. (12/8/1999, NO. 98-3765)<BR></A><BR> The shipping documents were prepared and signed in Colombia and showed that Transport would make stops in Texas and Florida before taking the herbicide to the West Indies. The herbicide leaked onto the deck of the ship while it was in Florida waters. The chemical composition of the herbicide was far less harmful. The clean up and disposal of the spill would have cost approximately $15. Proficol contends that neither statute applies because there was no </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2003/02-11990.opn.html">HOUSEHOLD BANK V. JFS GROUP (2/7/2003, NO. 02-11990)<BR></A><BR> It will file a customer's tax return electronically with the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb95/93-2706.html">UNIMAC CO. V. C.F. OCEAN SERVICE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Unimac Co. v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The central issue presented in this admiralty case is whether a carrier's misdelivery of goods constitutes a deviation such that the one year statute of limitations and $500 per package limit on liability set forth in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/031695p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that fishing history could not be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/95-3006.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Apr2002/004323.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the district court's orders. Joan McIlhenny's 1990 Ford Taurus had to have its transmission overhauled at 73. James Dunlap's 1995 Ford Winstar had to have its transmission overhauled at 65. The district court first indicated that Pennsylvania courts </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1996/96a1415p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiff is John Serbin. As the sun was rising on December 28. Struggled to move a stuck piece of equipment — known as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1164p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the judgment and orders of the district court. We therefore will refer to the plaintiffs singularly as Duquesne. It is beyond doubt that during these negotiations the parties had sophisticated technical. The steam generators for the first unit were installed in 1972. Those for the second unit were installed in 1981. Duquesne discovered corrosion and cracking in the generators' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-4093.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2001/986470.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The owner of pr emises on which the door was located. 000 award was not rationally based on the evidence presented. Tormenia was struck by a revolving door on property that Woodbridge owned and Troast managed. The accident was appar ently caused by a successive failure of two of the door's components. Its </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-13824.man.html">FED. RESERVE BANK OF ATLANTA V. THOMAS (7/31/2000, NO. 99-13824)<BR></A><BR> Finding that section 632 was inapplicable because the Federal Reserve's cause of action was statutory and therefore was not a suit </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D97E9C60973C816788256BD4007D9819/$file/0155326.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was hurt while working when a railroad crossing gate arm broke and struck him on the head. The Board argued that the City was not a proper party to recover expenses that it incurred as a result of Vasquez' disability retirement. Her claim is derivative of his personal injury claim. (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) does not divest the district court of jurisdiction because the City's claim against the Board was first properly filed in federal court and no other party objected to removal. Was dispatched to a railroad crossing in downtown San Diego because the crossinggate arms at the railroad tracks were stuck in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1998/98a1806p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wilburn ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1996/96a1279p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was substituted as plaintiff. Holbrook argues that the trial judge's conduct was unfair and requests a new trial before a different judge. We will reverse and remand the cause for a new trial. Was minimal and could not have caused mesothelioma. On its conclusion that mesothelioma and its cause is difficult to diagnose. Or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. The district court makes preliminary determinations whether the proposed expert witness is qualified and whether the testimony to be given is admissible under Rule 702. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a1002p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from an order of the district court made final pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Arguing that the partial settlement was unfair and prejudicial to them. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. FACTS International Thoroughbred Breeders ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0753p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We also decide that an arbitrated dispute that is based on the breach of a construction contract growing out of a territorial housing project financed by federal funds does not establish federal question jurisdiction. We will reverse an order of the district court vacating an arbitrator's award. Funding for the project was supplied by a program that receives part of its funding from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program. The contract was executed on September 29. No notice to proceed was issued. Contending that it was entitled to compensation for the work it had performed before the termination. The Housing Authority asserted that consideration of the amended claim was unfair and prejudicial. The two cases were consolidated by an order that was originally limited to discovery. Based on evidence that some of the expenses claimed by Coastal might have been inflated or completely false. The district court reasoned that the Housing Authority may have been prejudiced. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/95-4509.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/99-14328.man.html">NOBLE V. UNITED STATES (6/29/2000, NO. 99-14328)<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because there was a substantial question as to whether the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. </EM> ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1902p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the search of the Venture Pride at issue in this appeal was authorized by 14 U.S.C. S 89(a) (1994) since the Venture Pride was situated in U.S. territorial waters while undergoing repair. We will reverse the order of the district court and remand for further proceedings. The Venture Pride is owned by Varlack Ventures. Who was not on board. Who was then on board. Thomas informed him that the Venture Pride was in the north branch of Cruz Bay. Janssen noticed that a large amount of oil had been removed from the bilge. 3 Fredericks and Varlack Ventures were indicted for knowingly discharging oil into U.S. waters in violation of 33 U.S.C. Varlack Ventures also was indicted for violating 33 U.S.C. Were admissible. We will exercise plenary review of the district court's legal determinations and applications of law to facts. We will review the district court's factualfindings for clear error. We have no need to decide this issue in the instant case. No warrant was needed for the search. 4 A. Fredericks's reasonable expectation of privacy can only arise from his position as captain of the vessel.2 Third Circuit precedent is inconclusive regarding whether the captain of a ship can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the public areas of his vessel such as the engine room. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1233p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The agents seized the items that are the subject of the three proceedings on appeal: $14. He was eventually convicted of conspiracy to distribute heroin and to possess heroin with the intent to distribute it. Who was incarcerated. McGlory's mother claimed not to remember receiving the notices but stated that she would have turned any such notices over to the attorney who was representing McGlory on the criminal charges. McGlory first argues that his due process rights were violated in that the government failed to provide him with adequate notice of the civil forfeiture proceedings against the $14K and the statues. Civil in rem forfeiture proceedings are governed by Rule C of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims. Publication alone is not sufficient when the government can reasonably ascertain the names and addresses of interested parties. The State knew that appellant was not at the address to which the notice was mailed and. Knew also that appellant could not get to that address since he was at that very time confined in . . . jail. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1216p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although appellants were held liable for nearly $600 million in damages from that conspiracy. The courts ruled that the direct claims against Penn Central were barred by its reorganization. We will reverse. I. The Penn Central bankruptcy proceeding is more than a quarter century old. The facts of the antitrust conspiracy are even older. The railroad was a wholly owned subsidiary of United States Steel Corporation (now USX Corporation) until 1989. When it was spun off. Which was given limited immunity from antitrust attack under § 5(a) of the Reed Bulwinkle Act. The claims against Penn Central were held barred by the discharge. These claims were consolidated as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2002/00-14975.opn.html">BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC. V. CITY OF N. MIAMI (3/1/2002, NO. 00-14975)<BR></A><BR> The City was required to clean up the land by a consent decree it had entered into with the United States Environmental Protection Agency in settlement of a lawsuit the EPA had brought against the City under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. The City believed that Blasland was not entitled to payment because it had been negligent in doing the work. This litigation is the fruit of their disagreement. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1848p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue on appeal is whether S 5 of the Federal Employers' Liability Act1 voids a general release of claims given as part of a negotiated settlement. John McKee and John Kaltenbrunner are all former employees of defendant Consolidated Railroad Corporation who were injured during the course of their 1. While the releases were not identical. Testified he would not have executed a release with a broader scope. Wicker claims he was also exposed to trichlorethylene and trichloroethane while employed at Conrail. May have been exposed to other toxic chemicals without his knowledge. He does not believe any of his injuries are related to asbestos exposure. Samuel Weaver was employed by Conrail from 1974 until 1991. Said he would not have signed it otherwise. Weaver testified that he was exposed to chemicals during the course of his employment. Many are recent 3 developments which were not discovered until after he had signed the release. Thomas Kleiner was exposed to asbestos while employed by Conrail. Testified that neither he nor Kleiner were aware at the time the release was executed that Kleiner had been injured by exposure to chemicals other than asbestos. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1296p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. THE HISTORY OF THE CASE This matter is before this court on appeal following proceedings having an unusual procedural history. Is a tugboat operator on the Delaware River in the Philadelphia area. Is now the appellant. Are to John Bethel. Thereby suggesting that he was a drug user and hindering his efforts to obtain employment in the maritime and shipping industry. Charging that he was also liable for these alleged wrongs. Which is not at issue on this appeal. Inasmuch as we are not concerned with these claims. As a matter of convenience we will treat this case as simply a defamation action between Bethel. We nevertheless have considered the arguments Huesser set forth both in his brief and at oral argument. Did not understand McAllister's statements as indicating that Bethel was a drug user. Further concluded that Bethel failed to prove that McAllister's statements caused him </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200701/05-7162a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Robert J. With her on the brief were Michael D. Exxon argues that the district court should have granted the motion to dismiss because the plaintiffs' claims are non justiciable political questions. We need not reach the merits of Exxon's arguments because we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. We deny this petition because Exxon has not established a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-5374a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200303/02-5251a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200005/99-7171a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were James P. With him on the brief was A. The lawsuit was brought by appellees. Khalil was $388. Khalil contends that the District Court erred in holding that appellant's alleged RICO and common law tort violations were the legal cause of BCCI's losses. Appellant's disputed motion for a jury trial was filed more than a year late. There is ample evidence in the record to show but for and proximate causation. Khalil is liable to BCCI for damages in the amount of $62. The case will be remanded for the District Court to recalculate the damages that are due to appellees. I. Facts This lawsuit was spawned by BCCI's international collapse. Which was the largest international bank failure in history. Khalil is a wealthy Saudi Arabian businessman and former government official who deposited large amounts of money in BCCI. He may have been BCCI's largest deposi tor. To disguise risky investments and to create the false impression that BCCI was servicing large loans that were actually in default. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun22/03-60759-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the district court should have ordered arbitration pursuant to the parties' binding agreement. May alleges that she was qualified to be promoted to higher managerial positions but was repeatedly passed over in favor of male employees. When May was denied a promotion to the position of assistant store manager. Refused to promote May into higher level management positions because she was a woman and a mother. The motion was based on the fact that. States that both the company and the employee </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-7092a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Orfanedes was on the briefs. Doane was on the briefs. I. Background The key issue in the case is which party first used the SUNTECH trademark. Its application was granted in November. MSI discovered that Sunmatch was advertising SUN TECH tools in the United States and became concerned about Sunmatch's sales of private label tools in the U.S. The only affidavit MSI submitted did not raise a dispute over any material fact because it was not based upon the affiant's personal knowledge of the events surrounding the beginning of the relationship between the two companies. The court determined that Sunmatch owned the SUNTECH mark principally because it was the first to use it. (c) deciding that there was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-7107a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fisher was on the briefs. Houlihan was on the brief. Because the dispute was covered by a valid arbitration agreement. The first set of arbitration sessions did not take place until May and June of 1995 and the next set was not scheduled to begin until November 1996. The day before the arbitration was to resume. Liddle & Robinson contends that the district court did not have jurisdiction to enter this order and that it abused its discretion by imposing sanctions. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citi zenship under 28 U.S.C. s 1332. Instructing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/99-14481.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CARRELL (5/29/2001, NO. 99-14481)<BR></A><BR> The district judge decided that the government should have known earlier that the properties. Were purchased with drug money and dismissed the case with prejudice. Because he was about to commence a prison sentence for drug trafficking. Title was placed in the names of Elsie Keith and Scottie. Both deeds were recorded properly in the Jackson County. Homer Carrell had intimidated a federal witness who was providing information regarding the investigation of his drug trafficking activities to a federal grand jury. Was returned on September 7. The government alleged in its complaint that the farm was subject to forfeiture on the same grounds as those in this complaint.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/97-8278.opn.html">ITEL CONTAINER CORP. V. M/V "TITAN SCAN" (5/1/1998, NO. 97-8278)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</STRONG></EM></P> <P> Itel is a container leasing company. Where applicable.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991282.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 99 1282 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was negligent. That Wood was contributorily negligent. The facts leading up to the injury are not in dispute. One of those duties was to move a coil of wire from one deck to another. Wood was an experienced seaman and bosun. Delayed 1 The district court did not find that the vessel was unseaworthy. 2 Both men carried two way radios to communicate with each other while each was in a different area of the ship. 3 Wood unsuccessfully continued his attempts to contact his supervisor at various points in the process of moving the wire coil. 2 by other necessary work outside the scope of his usual morning rounds. Wood injured his back when the end of the wire rope became caught and Wood attempted to free the line while it was under tension. He assisted Wood in moving equipment and then told Wood he was ready to help with the wire coil. His failure to advise Wood that he was delayed and either arrange for other assistance for Wood or assign him to other tasks which he could safely perform alone pending his arrival. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982817.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we agree with the district court's finding that Bryan was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident in question. I. The facts are largely undisputed. Bryan was on his way to military logistics class when the car he was driving collided with Ross's motorcycle. Bryan was an active duty Marine Corps Officer permanently stationed in California. He did not have access to a car and obtained transportation from other marines. Certified that Bryan was acting within the scope of his employment and acting in the line of duty at the time of the accident. Bryan now appeals the district court's decision which decided that he was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident and remanded the case to the state court. Ross had the burden of persuasion to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Bryan was not acting within the scope of his employment. The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia certified that Bryan was acting within the scope of his employment and in the line of duty on the morning of the accident. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982526.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. This is a premises liability action. Although some of the facts are in dispute. Harris and Red Eye's are restaurant bar establishments located at Kent Narrows. Although the evidence is in some dispute. Who had returned from dinner and was sitting in the Fenningers' docked boat. Finding that the Fenningers had failed to present any evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that Benjamin Fenninger's injuries were proximately caused by the acts or omissions of the corporate defendants. A business owner and patron do not have a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982368OR.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that Congress could not have foreseen these discrepancies. The Moragne Court found that a claim for wrongful death based upon the unseaworthiness of a vessel was viable because the unseaworthiness doctrine had been extended to longshoremen as the principal vehicle for recovery of injury or death while performing work on a vessel. To the extent of that reliance Moragne was superceded and reversed by the 1972 amendments to the act. The panel opinion's reliance on this portion of Moragne is misplaced. The legislative history of the 1972 amendments to the Act are particularly relevant to our decision in this case. It is clear from this history that Congress intended to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/september1998.cfm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/96-5123.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/99-8145.man.html">MESOCAP IND. LTD. V. TORM LINES (11/12/1999, NO. 99-8145)<BR></A><BR> P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss Mesocap's Complaint because it was filed more than one year after the delivery of goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. Is therefore barred by the one year limitation period of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). Arguing that Torm's COGSA time limitation defense is precluded because Torm substantially deviated from the contract's delivery terms. The containers were discharged at Cotonou. The cargo in the third container was discovered to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-13156.man.html">RESNICK V. UCCELLO IMMOBILIEN GMBH (9/22/2000, NO. 99-13156)<BR></A><BR> Because the liquidated damages award was punitive. Was still able to transact his business in the building. An error of law is an abuse of discretion </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972139.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was in drydock at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard for repair. Xeno was to remove and replace the ventilation ductwork (including vent covers) and the computer cables. The ductwork and computer cables were attached to the computer room's ceiling. Xeno had full control over the repairs and Xeno's employees were not supervised by the United States. One particular cable was difficult to dislodge. Which was attached 2 to the ventilation ductwork running along the ceiling about 10 to 15 inches above Deyerle's head. This duty extends at least to exercising ordinary care under the circumstances to have the ship and its equipment in such condition that an expert and experienced stevedore will be able by the exercise of reasonable care to carry on its cargo operations with reasonable safety to persons and property. To warning the stevedore of any hazards on the ship or with respect to its equipment that are known to the vessel or should be known to it in the exercise of reasonable care. That would likely be encountered by the stevedore in the course of his cargo operations and that are not known by the stevedore and would not be obvious to or anticipated by him if reasonably competent in the performance of his work. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun16/03-20470.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Asserting that the seafastenings were inadequately designed or installed and permitted the jackup rig to move during the dry tow. Which was involved in rigging and securing the MR. Noble Denton denied that its seafastenings were negligently designed or installed or that the seafastenings caused the legs to collapse. Which were made by Rodriguez during the construction of the MR. The district court found that the evidence established that the rig's leg would not have collapsed but for a defective weld and that the collapse would have occurred regardless of the seafastenings used to secure the rig to the dry tow barge. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972082.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The terms of the sale were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept95/94-6650.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/96-6833.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961592.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For Appellee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun08/04-60014.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fulbruge III Clerk was liable for 1996 and 1997 deficiencies in income tax and for additions to tax. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. He contends that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031320.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Texas proceeding was thereafter transferred to the Eastern District of Vir SEABULK OFFSHORE v. Seabulk sought a declaration that it was entitled to insurance coverage by American Home for a lawsuit then pending against it in Texas. Seabulk alleged that it was covered under an insurance policy issued by American Home. The district court ruled that Seabulk was not entitled to either insurance coverage or damages. Because the July Opinion was filed without the benefit of this decision. Was premature in that it sought review of an interlocutory decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (establishing that courts of appeals </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031307.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> V. SHIP SWITZERLAND Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Captain Saudi alleges that he was injured on May 17. Which was offloading Saudi in a basket from the S/T Marine Atlantic. Captain Saudi was dropped approximately fifty feet into the Gulf of Mexico. In which Automar and Acomarit were formerly both shareholders but which has been a wholly owned subsidiary of Automar since December 1998. Captain Saudi claims he is entitled to an award of two million dollars in actual damages. They have not purchased or sold any goods here. They have not advertised any services or goods in any medium that I know of in Maryland. They have never solicited any business in Maryland. There simply is no what we call continuous or systematic contacts or connections here in Maryland. Garrett with [Acomarit and Automar] is just that. Which is. I will grant the motion to dismiss. V. SHIP SWITZERLAND 5 ped from arguing that appellees' actions were the proximate cause of Saudi's injuries. We believe the parties have misunderstood the district court's oral ruling. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031075.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While the rig was dockside during the course of restowage. It was severely damaged. The district court found that Shipco was liable for the damage. COGSA's liability limitation continued to apply when the cargo was being restowed at Charleston. Even though the rig was damaged while on land. The restowage operation at the intermediate Charleston port was a customary activity in the carriage of goods at sea and did not constitute a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021537.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which entity was acquired in 1998 by Roche Holding. The purpose of the agreement was to facilitate the development. Technology.1 In ECL is used in testing human body fluids for the presence of substances like proteins and viruses. The fluid is added to a test kit called an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun08/03-60759-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the district court should have ordered arbitration pursuant to the parties' binding agreement. May alleges that she was qualified to be promoted to higher managerial positions but was repeatedly passed over in favor of male employees. When May was denied a promotion to the position of assistant store manager. Refused to promote May into higher level management positions because she was a woman and a mother. The motion was based on the fact that. States that both the company and the employee </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012060.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That McHan was required to forfeit to the United States approximately $1.5 million in proceeds obtained as a result of his criminal conduct. Charles Jr. contend (1) that under the Due Process Clause they were entitled to be heard before the district court issued the preliminary order of forfeiture. (3) that the district court violated the Seventh Amendment by denying their request to have the hearing of their petition conducted before a jury. They also make several challenges to determinations specific to assets that were not released from the forfeiture order. Sr. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1554.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011867.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Who is hearing impaired. Is the exclusive compensatory remedy for her work related injury. (2) that certain of her claims are time barred. We will refer to them as Positions 1 7. She is not fluent in sign language. She was concerned that it was causing additional hearing loss. Both requests were granted. Szedlock continued to have problems with multi party meetings. TENET preter or notetaker over 100 times while she was in Position 2. The EEO officer responsible for deaf employees informed her that the CIA did not have oral interpreters. Because she was still having problems in meetings. Ultimately decided it was not an effective solution. She continued to have problems in the meetings she did attend. She also continued to receive her salary while she was in school (Position 5). Most of her formal requests were denied because the CIA's sign language SZEDLOCK v. TENET 5 interpreters were booked to work at other events. This effort was unsuccessful. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5098.html">EL-SHIFA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY, ET AL. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Timothy J. Ambrose</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Christopher J. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Thomas L. Line height:200%'><span style='mso tab count:1'>            </span>The complaint states that Idris is a highly successful Saudi banker who was born and raised in Sudan.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The chain of events leading up to the instant lawsuit began in March 1998. El Shifa was the sole and exclusive owner of a manufacturing facility located in Khartoum. ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The appellants allege that El Shifa was the largest pharmaceutical manufacturing company in Sudan and that it used the Plant to supply drugs sorely needed by the impoverished people living in that country.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>    </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoBodyText style='text indent:.5in'><span style='mso bidi font size: 12.0pt. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011542.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was operated by Waterman. Which McLean was responsible for repairing. McLean was engaged in replacing the Newport River Railroad Bridge in Morehead City. One of the LASH barges discharged from the Sam Houston was the CG5151. Which was scheduled to be towed to South Carolina for ultimate unloading of its cargo. Waterman hired James River Towing Company to provide tug boats and labor to handle Waterman's barges while they were in Morehead City and hired Captain Robert M. The parties consented to have their case tried before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(1) (West 1993 & Supp. 2001). 1 MCLEAN CONTRACTING v. In that each was a third party contractor. It was precluded from asserting the defense at trial. 12 (4th Cir. 1994) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011407.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dunlap alleges that as part of the transaction he was required to sign a retail installment contract that included. That these insurance products were provided by American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida (ABICF) and American Bankers Life Assurance Company of Florida (ABLACF). Or the validity of this Agreement . . . shall be resolved by arbitration in the state in which this Agreement is entered into . . . in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. While that motion and Dunlap's underlying claims were pending in state court. Is involved in this appeal. 1 4 FRIEDMAN'S v. Were the petition granted. Will not exceed eight thousand dollars ($8. We also conclude that federal jurisdiction is lacking. The district court concluded that the question of whether one of the abstention doctrines applied was moot since federal jurisdiction was lacking. DUNLAP 5 coming to this conclusion inasmuch as another jurisdictional defect exists.3 Despite getting in state court what it is now seeking in federal court an order that Dunlap's underlying claims be submitted to arbitration Friedman's still insists that we can and should permit his federal lawsuit to continue. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CEE298DF6BE46CF088256AB4006D9C29/$file/0015128.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended as follows: Slip Op. at 9033. That is. Hence that Walker and In re Collins are 11440 no longer good law. The definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CD443CB50C2A928588256C62007C9195/$file/0171841.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This interpleader litigation is part of an on going dispute between the Philippine government and creditors of the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos over assets Marcos allegedly secreted from the government while he was President of the Philippines. The assets were held in an account in New York by Merrill Lynch. Until the assets were turned over to the district court in September 2000. The Republic of the Philippines ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C13A6195B292AC2288256D8E007D4857/$file/0135959.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Skurdal was arrested in the early morning hours of February 15. Skurdal is indigent. Bevolden was appointed as his trial counsel. Skurdal's brother is not a member of the bar of any state. Skurdal was charged by a federal grand jury with five counts of violating federal laws prohibiting the manufacture. Skurdal was both competent to represent himself and to stand trial. Asserting that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B69E06DD4D1F3D3288256BE30081B1FE/$file/0056970.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was bound by the forum selection clause in the bill of lading issued by the ship's owner to the NVOCC. (2) whether the NVOCC was entitled to take advantage of a statutory limitation of liability by having given the cargo's owner a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001125.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Judgment was entered in favor of Schmitz on its claim and in favor of Rockland on its counterclaim on December 30. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW Rockland is a Maryland corporation that manufactures drapery lining fabric. The fabric was SCHMITZ WERKE GMBH v. Was intended for sale in European markets. Claims that this is because the product did not meet its volume requirements. Schmitz is a German company that manufactures. During their negotiations Rockland's representatives stated that the fabric was particularly suited to be a printing base for transfer printing. Transfer printing is a process for imprinting the base fabric with dyes of particular colors or patterns. The fabric is drawn over a heated metal cylinder along with a sheet of transfer paper that contains the dye. The dye is heated by the cylinder and turns into a gas. Which is picked up by the fibers in the fabric. The sample was shipped to PMD. Schmitz notified Rockland that there were several problems with the fabric but that in general they were satisfied with the material. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AEC0A6B454F3209388256ABE005AEAC2/$file/9957000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (6) abused discretion by refusing to grant the claimants' motion in limine to exclude evidence that Adaline Garcia was not an innocent spouse. FACTS The facts and procedural history of this case have a degree of complexity worthy of Jarndyce v. More than nine years 1 We do not reach this issue because we are not ordering a remand. 12297 later. A probable cause hearing was held (the procedural history from 1989 to the present will be discussed below). DEA and IRS Special Agents Bradley Reed and Frank Fotinatos testified about what the government knew before the forfeiture complaint was filed. Larry Goodman said in 1986 that Lair told him that Jackson was the source of the cocaine and that Jackson had partners </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D8524371EDD4FDAB8825733A004BEA0C/$file/0655964.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We consider whether a class arbitration waiver in New Cingular Wireless Service Inc.'s standard contract for cellular phone services is unconscionable under California law. Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a holding that the waiver is unenforceable. We hold that the waiver is unconscionable. That the invalidation of the contract provision is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. Alleging that he and similarly situated plaintiffs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9E259207B0F126FA88256E5A00707BEC/$file/0015128.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ellett seeks declaratory and injunctive relief barring Goldberg from collecting certain pre petition state income tax obligations that were allegedly discharged in his bankruptcy proceeding. Ellett's Chapter 13 plan was confirmed in April 1995 and was completed two years later. The FTB notice stated that such obligations were not discharged in bankruptcy and that collection action was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9C44E8CD02A01D038825700C007E70EE/$file/0056970.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case is before us for a second time.1 In our previous opinion. We held: With respect to the in rem action: The forumselection clause in the Hyundai bill of lading is enforceable against Plaintiff. Glory Express is entitled to the limitations on liability provided in 46 U.S.C. app. § 1304(5). The Supreme Court criticized our </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9BFCC98B625BF90588256F3B007B5118/$file/0216619.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appeal was not submitted as NRG Energy. Which was in bankruptcy proceedings. Argued the case for the appellant and was on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. Argued the case for the appellees and was on the joint briefs of the appellees. Hixson were also on the joint briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the brief of amici curiae State of Washington and State of Oregon in support of plaintiff. 2004 is hereby amended as follows: At page 8863 of the slip opinion. Delete the parenthetical quotation and add the following two sentences at the conclusion of footnote 17 as follows: At issue are not state regulatory schemes for employment discrimination. Which might indirectly and unintentionally have some possible effect on energy prices. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether federal removal jurisdiction lies over California state court actions alleging that several power companies fraudulently failed to deliver reserve energy that might otherwise have helped to avert the state's energy crises of 2000 and 2001. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/921500E7C5A64E0A882571C30048F0C9/$file/0256256.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville. Who allege that they or their family members were the victims of numerous violations of international law as a result of defendant mining corporation Rio Tinto. Which provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/91B469B4249DF25188256C4C007B1EF9/$file/0035871.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That equitable factors have no place in the district court's consideration of a § 914(f) penalty.2 I. Hanson incorrectly stated that his address was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D91E3BA76D6BC01088256DA2005A4FD1/$file/0116558.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was settled as to all defendants but one. Liability where the Warsaw Convention did not apply was limited to $20 per kilogram. The waybill says that this amount is designed to be the approximate value of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7E7312DF999659CD88256D810068E2EA/$file/0235534.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that Western Pioneer was entitled to limit its liability under the Act. We affirm. [1] The Limitation of Liability Act limits shipowner liability arising from the unseaworthiness of the shipowner's vessel or the negligence of the vessel's crew unless the condition of unseaworthiness or the act of negligence was within the shipowner's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E07D6603ADB8392C88256B8F0079BD7C/$file/0057058.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They were unable to reach an agreement with respect to Lozen's counterclaims. There is a genuine issue of fact as to whether there was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E0FBD01ED21BE1DC88256F1F007CF36C/$file/0315396.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: This is an appeal from a final judgment of forfeiture in a civil forfeiture action. After the action was terminated with respect to all other claimants. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Anahit Margarian ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/60ED92E6D721F94188256E5A00707C76/$file/0015128.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended as follows: Slip Op. at 9033. That is. Hence that Walker and In re Collins are 11440 no longer good law. The definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E9439316125388F88256BA60080FF7C/$file/0155677.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court granted Hyundai judgment on the pleadings1 on the basis that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA)2 applied and its provisions barred Underwood's action based upon the Federal Bill of Lading Act (Pomerene Act)3 because this action was not commenced </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/571B3EA9398C1C4488256E5A00707CB2/$file/9916183.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This is a consolidated appeal involving 174 separate but virtually identical civil actions which were filed in the district court by seamen who formerly worked aboard the S.S. Each plaintiff claims to have been exposed to asbestos in the course of employment on board the vessels. The principal question that we address in this appeal is whether. The relief sought by these plaintiffs differs from two other forms of relief that courts have awarded in toxic exposure cases to persons who have not yet developed any diagnosed medical condition attributable to the exposure. Discounted by the probability that the harm will never occur. We have recognized the availability of monitoring damages for plaintiffs who have not yet developed symptoms of disease in Abuan v. Provided such monitoring is shown to have a medically beneficial effect. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's conclusion that the Jones Act does not permit recovery for medical monitoring for plaintiffs who have not yet developed symptoms of disease. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/52E0DFB38F65F36F88256DF1000030F3/$file/0116558.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: At page 934. The case was settled. Held that because the chips were stolen in Schenker's off airport ware 16972 ALBINGIA VERSICHERUNGS v. The contractual limitation to $20 per kilogram was valid under federal common law. Judges Kleinfeld and Rawlinson have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. No further petitions for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. The case was settled as to all defendants but one. Liability where the Warsaw Convention did not apply was limited to $20 per kilogram. The waybill says that this amount is designed to be the approximate value of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4D355D5CCD3AF21988256B3E000044D5/$file/0035838.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The exception is Plaintiff's claim that the Government negligently failed to discharge a nondiscretionary duty to perform a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/490C9CC2EC1E82F3882572D4005A3D69/$file/0535572.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: At the heart of this tangled jurisdictional dispute is a simple but unfortunate accident. Was sailing from Papeete. We hold that the Western District of Washington was not the proper forum. The underlying dispute arising from the accident is not before us. I. THE PARTIES Holland America is a Washington corporation that operates passenger sail cruises. AMERICA 5069 Bureau Veritas is a French classification society which sets standards for the quality and integrity of ships and performs ship surveys to determine compliance with the classification society's rules and regulations. BV Canada is a Canadian corporation that performs similar services. Wärtsilä is a Finnish holding company that indirectly owns both Wärtsilä Finland and Wärtsilä NA it does not manufacture or design products. Or sold a faulty engine part that may have contributed to the accident. Some but not all of the parts sold and used by Wärtsilä NA are manufactured by other Wärtsilä entities. Wärtsilä Australia and Wärtsilä New Zealand were dismissed voluntarily from the case and Wärtsilä Finland was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1E00D3A54B62AA288256EC90056C8FF/$file/0216619.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appeal was not submitted as NRG Energy. Which was in bankruptcy proceedings. Argued the case for the appellant and was on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. Argued the case for the appellees and was on the joint briefs of the appellees. Hixson were also on the joint briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA v. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the brief of amici curiae State of Washington and State of Oregon in support of plaintiff. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether federal removal jurisdiction lies over California state court actions alleging that several power companies fraudulently failed to deliver reserve energy that might otherwise have helped to avert the state's energy crises of 2000 and 2001. Perhaps the culmination of this rethinking was California's decision in 1996 to initiate an aggressive market experiment to deregulate and to restructure its electricity markets. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F31BC7CFC2E61F36882572BA0076FFCD/$file/0256256.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER Rio Tinto's petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is granted in part. Are hereby withdrawn. A superseding opinion and dissent will be filed concurrently with this order. Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville. Who allege that they or their family members were the victims of numerous violations of international law as a result of defendant mining corporation Rio Tinto. Which provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F3615F6674BD8D5288256E1C00053F59/$file/0272578.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts and Procedural History Johnston Atoll is a United States possession. Located about 700 miles west southwest of Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean.1 It is only two miles long and one half mile wide. Gambling and fighting are prohibited. The hip injury is the subject of the instant claim. Which is one of several authorized social clubs on Johnston Atoll. OWCP 463 There are conflicting accounts of precisely what transpired at the AMVETS. It is undisputed that Ilaszczat fell and injured his hip there. None of the soldiers was interested. He described his second encounter with the soldiers as follows: [T]here was a couple of the military guys sitting at the bar and somehow the subject got around to martial arts. . . . [Burum] said he was really good at it and I said. [H]e was pretty insistent upon showing me how he could lift my [sic] leg over my head without touching me. . . . I went to the back of the room where the pool table and that picnic table [were] and I put my drink down on the picnic table and when he went to kick me. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3422EFC89DBC107988256C380004C2EE/$file/0015223.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs contend it was error for the district court to entertain United's motions for forum non conveniens because the Warsaw Convention. The judgments of the district court dismissing these actions on the ground of forum non conveniens are reversed. PROCEDURAL HISTORY These related cases were brought by passengers on United Air Lines Flight 826. Which was scheduled to fly from Tokyo. We have no occasion to decide whether state courts may apply their own doctrines of forum non conveniens to actions arising under the Warsaw Convention. 1 HOSAKA v. In some cases family members who were not passengers on the flight. We have jurisdiction over these appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we reverse. If the plain text is ambiguous. All 18 cases are consolidated for the purposes of this appeal. 2 14282 HOSAKA v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/332DD12889E41B8288256E5A00707D49/$file/9917154.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Mudgetts were the owners and operators of Marin Tug and Barge. Because the diesel engines that power the receiving ships are highly sensitive to abrasives. Bunker fuel must meet certain specifications regarding aluminum and silicon oxide content. 15727 (Aluminum and silicon oxide are used as catalysts in the refining process.). The Tenor was loaded with marine fuel oil at Shell's Martinez refinery. It turned out that there were large amounts of alumina and silica in Shell's delivery line. The oil loaded onto the Tenor was substandard. Marin Tug learned that the fuel delivered to the Direct Eagle was contaminated. Believing the Tenor was the source of the contamination. Two flushing voyages were completed. The Tenor was sold to a third party. After the civil action was filed. Shell refused to have further business dealings with Marin Tug and prohibited Marin Tug from loading fuel at Shell's Martinez refinery. The effect of Shell's refusal to deal was not only that Shell would no longer contract with Marin Tug but also that Marin Tug could no longer do business with third party fuel brokers and consumers who otherwise would have hired it to transport Shell oil. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F56B5589348AAB3E88256B0300799704/$file/9917154.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Mudgetts were the owners and operators of Marin Tug and Barge. Because the diesel engines that power the receiving ships are highly sensitive to abrasives. Bunker fuel must meet certain specifications regarding aluminum and silicon oxide content. 15727 (Aluminum and silicon oxide are used as catalysts in the refining process.). The Tenor was loaded with marine fuel oil at Shell's Martinez refinery. It turned out that there were large amounts of alumina and silica in Shell's delivery line. The oil loaded onto the Tenor was substandard. Marin Tug learned that the fuel delivered to the Direct Eagle was contaminated. Believing the Tenor was the source of the contamination. Two flushing voyages were completed. The Tenor was sold to a third party. After the civil action was filed. Shell refused to have further business dealings with Marin Tug and prohibited Marin Tug from loading fuel at Shell's Martinez refinery. The effect of Shell's refusal to deal was not only that Shell would no longer contract with Marin Tug but also that Marin Tug could no longer do business with third party fuel brokers and consumers who otherwise would have hired it to transport Shell oil. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FC0382C93659EB0D88256D330056B516/$file/0216161.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an interlocutory order denying defendants' motion to exclude certain members from the plaintiff class. A stipulated judgment was entered thereafter. Because the order appealed from is not a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Who were then or would be in the future confined at CIW and CCWF. DAVIS persons who were then or would be in the future confined at CIW and CCWF and who were diagnosed as HIV positive. The parties entered into a court approved settlement agreeing to independent audits of the CIW and CCWF healthcare systems to determine their compliance with the parties' settlement provisions as to 56 aspects of care.1 1 The 56 specific areas addressed in the settlement agreement were: medical screening. Assessment of inmates with chronic diseases for which CDC had no guidelines to determine whether chronic care enrollment was indicated. Whether medical authorization review decisions were documented in records and inmates consulted. Shansky found eleven areas of non compliance at CIW and only two at CCWF.2 He opined that the deficiencies at CIW and CCWF were easily correctable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FF60C51C29557BC388256AC00076A857/$file/9916183.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This is a consolidated appeal involving 174 separate but virtually identical civil actions which were filed in the district court by seamen who formerly worked aboard the S.S. Each plaintiff claims to have been exposed to asbestos in the course of employment on board the vessels. The principal question that we address in this appeal is whether. The relief sought by these plaintiffs differs from two other forms of relief that courts have awarded in toxic exposure cases to persons who have not yet developed any diagnosed medical condition attributable to the exposure. Discounted by the probability that the harm will never occur. We have recognized the availability of monitoring damages for plaintiffs who have not yet developed symptoms of disease in Abuan v. Provided such monitoring is shown to have a medically beneficial effect. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's conclusion that the Jones Act does not permit recovery for medical monitoring for plaintiffs who have not yet developed symptoms of disease. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0E0D58F45472F51388256E5A00707C9F/$file/9957000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (6) abused discretion by refusing to grant the claimants' motion in limine to exclude evidence that Adaline Garcia was not an innocent spouse. FACTS The facts and procedural history of this case have a degree of complexity worthy of Jarndyce v. More than nine years 1 We do not reach this issue because we are not ordering a remand. 12297 later. A probable cause hearing was held (the procedural history from 1989 to the present will be discussed below). DEA and IRS Special Agents Bradley Reed and Frank Fotinatos testified about what the government knew before the forfeiture complaint was filed. Larry Goodman said in 1986 that Lair told him that Jackson was the source of the cocaine and that Jackson had partners </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0D9CA10E7E5E08AB88256C0D00815AEF/$file/0155326.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 8451. The district court could have exercised jurisdiction over the City's removed claim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/04571662aae1564488256a8b005a3339/$FILE/0015128.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ellett seeks declaratory and injunctive relief barring Goldberg from collecting certain pre petition state income tax obligations that were allegedly discharged in his bankruptcy proceeding. Ellett's Chapter 13 plan was confirmed in April 1995 and was completed two years later. The FTB notice stated that such obligations were not discharged in bankruptcy and that collection action was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/3422efc89dbc107988256c380004c2ee/$FILE/0015223.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs contend it was error for the district court to entertain United's motions for forum non conveniens because the Warsaw Convention. The judgments of the district court dismissing these actions on the ground of forum non conveniens are reversed. PROCEDURAL HISTORY These related cases were brought by passengers on United Air Lines Flight 826. Which was scheduled to fly from Tokyo. We have no occasion to decide whether state courts may apply their own doctrines of forum non conveniens to actions arising under the Warsaw Convention. 1 HOSAKA v. In some cases family members who were not passengers on the flight. We have jurisdiction over these appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we reverse. If the plain text is ambiguous. All 18 cases are consolidated for the purposes of this appeal. 2 14282 HOSAKA v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0AF115321BE654B28825728100813F92/$file/0456844.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Scheuring claims that he is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/60ed92e6d721f94188256e5a00707c76/$FILE/0015128.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended as follows: Slip Op. at 9033. That is. Hence that Walker and In re Collins are 11440 no longer good law. The definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/9e259207b0f126fa88256e5a00707bec/$FILE/0015128.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ellett seeks declaratory and injunctive relief barring Goldberg from collecting certain pre petition state income tax obligations that were allegedly discharged in his bankruptcy proceeding. Ellett's Chapter 13 plan was confirmed in April 1995 and was completed two years later. The FTB notice stated that such obligations were not discharged in bankruptcy and that collection action was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/cee298df6be46cf088256ab4006d9c29/$FILE/0015128.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended as follows: Slip Op. at 9033. That is. Hence that Walker and In re Collins are 11440 no longer good law. The definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/04571662AAE1564488256A8B005A3339/$file/0015128.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ellett seeks declaratory and injunctive relief barring Goldberg from collecting certain pre petition state income tax obligations that were allegedly discharged in his bankruptcy proceeding. Ellett's Chapter 13 plan was confirmed in April 1995 and was completed two years later. The FTB notice stated that such obligations were not discharged in bankruptcy and that collection action was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3162.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Petitioner Cassandra Augustine was successful in her appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-1105.htm">97-1105 -- ADAMS V. CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS CO. -- 07/16/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <strong><hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/07/973021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Allen Zurcher were convicted of mail fraud. We will refer to this lawsuit as the Baskerville case. Or had a death in the family was entitled to a substantial damage award in the Baskerville case. The catch was that claimants needed to pay We The People $300 to cover the administrative costs of filing claims. These were called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/06/972497U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rejected defendants& assertion that Mateffy&s action was time barred. It is an independent contract action) and thus cannot confer jurisdiction on the federal court. 375 (8th Cir. 1996) (district court&s finding of jurisdiction is reviewed de novo). That is. Defendants also argue that Mateffy&s action was time barred. Defendants assert that the district court should have applied Minnesota procedural law to this state law renewal action. That under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 3.01 an action is not commenced until service. That they were not served until January 1997. Thus that the action was timely. 849 (9th Cir. 1986) (determination regarding whether state or federal law governs action is question of law. In diversity actions where the underlying cause of action is based on state law. 39 & n.4 (1987) (holding that even though statute of limitations was borrowed from another federal statute. Rule 3 and not commencement rule found in statute from which limitations period was borrowed applied to action). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/04/964267P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The facts giving rise to the Armstrong bankruptcy saga are fully recited in our opinion in Armstrong I. Were the sole shareholders. David and Hannah purchased annuities that were exempt from execution under Nebraska law.1 See Neb. Virtually all of their assets were encumbered to the benefit of Omaha State Bank and to the detriment of all other creditors. Was a personal friend of Theodore's. Lynn Terry and David Armstrong were substituted for him in this appeal. 32 1 transferred property with the intent to hinder. Collateral Estoppel Kelly asserts that the Armstrongs are precluded from relitigating the issue of fraudulent intent because the bankruptcy court made an earlier finding that they transferred property with intent to hinder. We do not agree that the bankruptcy finding is controlling in this case. They argued that the claim was extinguished by the Bank's failure to give proper notice of the sale of $950 worth of hay and equipment. Four requirements must be met before a finding in a previous case is conclusive: (1) the issue must be identical to that involved in the prior proceeding. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/962140P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is vacated. The opinion filed on that date is withdrawn. The attached opinion is filed in its stead. Was defective and caused an explosion at Terra's plant. Terra's principal place of business is in Sioux City. Mississippi Chemical Corporation also engages in the production of fertilizers and is the largest manufacturer of ammonium nitrate fertilizer in the United States. MCC's principal place of business is in Yazoo City. The entire paragraph reads as follows: This agreement will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Mississippi. Will be determined in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi and. The emphasized portion of the above paragraph is the forum selection clause at issue in this case. The meaning of which is highly contested. Located in Sioux MCC's technology is currently used at 22 other ammonium nitrate manufacturing facilities. The second count asserted that MCC's neutralizer technology was unreasonably dangerous and defective and thus alleged that MCC should be held strictly liable for the damages caused by the explosion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/962140P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was defective and caused an explosion at Terra's plant. Terra's principal place of business is in Sioux City. Mississippi Chemical Corporation also engages in the production of fertilizers and is the largest manufacturer of ammonium nitrate fertilizer in the United States. MCC's principal place of business is in Yazoo City. The entire paragraph reads as follows: This agreement will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Mississippi. Will be determined in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi and. The emphasized portion of the above paragraph is the forum selection clause at issue in this case. The meaning of which is highly contested. Located in Sioux MCC's technology is currently used at 22 other ammonium nitrate manufacturing facilities. The second count asserted that MCC's neutralizer technology was unreasonably dangerous and defective and thus alleged that MCC should be held strictly liable for the damages caused by the explosion. MCC sought a declaratory judgment that it was not liable in any way for the explosion at Terra's Port Neal facility and asserted a defamation claim against Terra.4 In December 1995. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/043245P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Leavitt is automatically substituted for his predecessor. Arguing that she was not required to comply with North Dakota law because tribal law governs instead. Which is in turn within the territory of the State of North Dakota. In considering whether the dismissal was warranted. 319 (1957) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/041292P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ashley Bunch (Bunch) was injured aboard the M/V Sir Joseph (Sir Joseph). Concluding Bunch was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-6433.htm">97-6433 -- U.S. V. ONE CASHIER'S CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF 312,227.95 -- 09/29/1998<BR></A><BR> Which sum was subject to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/06/033322P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which grants to the federal circuit courts jurisdiction over cases that have been finally The Honorable Richard E. Special Weapons's counterclaim was still pending in the district court and therefore the final judgment rule was not satisfied. Arguing that he could not prevail on any of his claims because the contract was void. The district court's decision was silent with respect to it.). The final judgment rule is designed to insure that the scarce resources of litigants and the courts are not wasted in interlocutory appeals that impede the flow of litigation. It reflects a congressional choice that such consequences are preferable to the greater cost that could result from interlocutory appeals. The Supreme Court has said that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1408.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. P. 60(b) from his (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The defendant was convicted. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. The defendant's original 2255 motion was denied by the district court and. In the motions he alleged that the judgment entered against him was based on fraud and was void ab initio. That they are two separate entities. He also argued that a fraud was perpetrated because the jurisdiction of the court was under admiralty maritime <hr> jurisdiction and was not a criminal action as was represented to him. See 28 U.S.C. 2255 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/03/031431P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This construction effort was referred to as the Aries Project. HRSGs are boilers that convert waste heat from gas turbines into processed steam for combined cycle electrical generation. The components comprising the HRSGs were to be shipped by Toshiba from its facilities in Japan to the United States. Appellants are members of a syndicate of underwriters at Lloyd's of London (collectively. The risk for a project was added to the facility by way of declaration (or endorsement). Consequential loss coverage under Section II was available only in conjunction with projects selected for physical loss coverage under Section I. No items were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-5122.htm">98-5122 -- B. WILLIS V. GOODPASTER -- 07/20/1999<BR></A><BR> We affirm.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/02/023747P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Compact was created and entered into by five member states and was also enacted into law by Congress. Nebraska was selected as the site for the facility. The Commission is a plaintiff in this case. This action was originally brought against Nebraska and the Commission by utility companies from the five Compact states: Entergy Arkansas. The defendants named in the Commission's complaint were the State of Nebraska. The case was tried to the district court for two months. It found that Nebraska had not carried out its obligations under the Compact in good faith and that the Commission was entitled to recover over $97 million for funds and work expended in the thwarted attempt to construct the radioactive waste disposal facility. Some of which were decided against it on earlier appeals. We have already addressed the Compact and related issues in a series of earlier appeals in this case. 207 F.3d 1021 (8th Cir. 2000) (Nebraska did not have veto power over low level radioactive waste export permits). V. Each member state is represented on the Commission by one representative and is entitled to a single vote. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5084.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue in this case is whether an Oklahoma divorce court's interlocutory (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> protective orders requiring a husband. We have jurisdiction. I The facts are undisputed and ably set out in Simpson II. TDW determined the parties' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/06/022565P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court1 concluded the funds flowing through the loan manager account were subject to garnishment and thus found the Bank failed to answer truthfully the interrogatories accompanying the writ of garnishment. The Note extended a one million dollar line of credit to Southwestern and stated the line of credit was only to be used for working capital. Southwestern established a commercial checking account (the loan manager account) on which Southwestern was the sole signatory. The Bank stated it did not hold any of Southwestern's property in its checking account and again stated the balance in the loan manager account was zero. The proceeds were Southwestern's property. The proceeds were subject to garnishment. The loan manager account was not a special deposit account. The Bank contends (1) the funds dispersed from the line of credit were not subject to 3 garnishment under the Arkansas Code. (2) the loan manager account was a special deposit account immune from garnishment. Proceeds From Southwestern's Line of Credit The Arkansas Code allows a judgment creditor to issue a writ of garnishment to any person the judgment creditor believes </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/05/023177P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Then filed claims contesting the forfeiture on the ground that each is an innocent owner of the Navigator. We conclude that they have Article III standing to contest the forfeiture. The district court's decision that they lack statutory standing was a ruling on the merits of their claims that violated their right to a jury trial. That the daughter lost her job when the car was seized. That losing the car was a hardship on Bearden and her family. The substantial hardship provision was one of eight </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/12/012957P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the District Court was correct in using the cost of completion of the permanent casino as the measure of damages for the breach of contract and awarding interest on the judgment. Turn Key was to manage the casino for five years in return for a share of the casino's profits after deducting the cost of building the casino. The contract was submitted to the National Indian Gaming Commission in late November of 1994 for approval. The Management Agreement was approved by the Commission a year later. The Tribe was liable only for the first $4. Turn Key realized that the project was going to cost $1. The Tribe announced that it was treating the contract as broken. Specifically that it was entitled to reimbursement of certain costs either under the Management Agreement or on an unjust enrichment theory. The Tribe was awarded $1. Turn Key was awarded $1. On the ground that those expenses were incurred under a separate contract. Is the measure of damages properly applied on the Tribe's counterclaim. It will be recalled that the counterclaim sought damages for Turn Key's breach of the Management Agreement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/99-1170.htm">99-1170 -- SCHRODER V. BIENVENU -- 09/02/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Schroder filed this appeal arguing that the district court erred in accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss his complaint. <p> Deanell Reece Tacha <p> Circuit Judge <p> <hr> <center> <b>FOOTNOTES</b> <font size=2>Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.</font> </center> <p> <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-2040.htm">98-2040 -- U.S. V. PRENTISS -- 02/24/2000<BR></A><BR> (2) the indictment was insufficient because it failed to allege his Indian or non Indian status and the Indian or non Indian status of the victim. (3) there was insufficient evidence in this case to support his conviction because the government failed to prove the Indian or non Indian status of the defendant or victim. Prentiss's indictment was insufficient because it failed to allege the Indian or non Indian status of the defendant and victim. Because the conviction was based upon an indictment which failed to allege an essential element. Prentiss was home caring for his three young children and the two children of a family friend. The fire was extinguished. <p> Immediately upon extinguishing the fire. The outlet showed no sign of the sparking and arcing that one would have expected had the electrical socket itself failed. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> at 274 75. <p> After the fire was extinguished. Prentiss told fire investigators that he was watching a boxing match on HBO immediately before the fire. <u>See</u> Rec. vol. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=11&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=02&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-1073.htm">99-1073 -- NAUERT V. NAVA LEISURE USA INC. -- 04/14/2000<BR></A><BR> Senior District Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-2006.htm">99-2006 -- U.S. V. MACKOVICH -- 04/25/2000<BR></A><BR> Applying what is commonly known as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-8053.htm">99-8053 -- HUTTON V. DEERE & CO. -- 04/05/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Robin L. S is a Casper. Is an authorized dealer of equipment manufactured by Deere. The particular delimber Hutton viewed was a Model PP 453 delimber. It is undisputed that all delimbers have to be mounted onto some motorized carrying equipment. The purpose of a Deere excavator is to dig dirt. Which are used for digging. Must first be removed and then a delimber is attached. The excavator was shipped from Houston to S&. The Deere 690E is referred to as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1628.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court based its dismissal on the lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the requisite jurisdictional amount was not alleged. The complaint alleges that only a portion of the $30 actually went to a courier and that the rest was secretly kept by MoneyLine. District Court Proceedings 3 This case was before the district court on Ms. There is no question about the parties' diversity of citizenship. MoneyLine is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business in Virginia. Coleman is a citizen of Illinois. The only dispute before the district court was whether the amount in controversy requirement. Was met. It further ruled that attorney's fees only count toward the amount in controversy requirement if they were incurred before the filing of the lawsuit. MoneyLine did not claim that its fees prior to the suit were so extensive as to meet the jurisdictional amount. This ruling is not before us on appeal. Courts have held consistently that the amount in controversy is determined by the amount at stake in the underlying dispute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4022.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case was originally brought in federal district court in the Eastern District of Missouri (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3651.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was an insulin dependent diabetic and known to be such by his coworkers many of whom. Were medical workers. When his coworkers noticed that he was in one of his hypoglycemic states. Who was complaining about feeling ill and said that he wanted to go home. Was having one of his hypoglycemic episodes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2822.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When a container of tools disappeared while it was in transit between China and the Indiana warehouse of the ultimate purchaser. As is common today. Was shipped under an intermodal waybill and was packed in a container that could easily be transferred from one carrier to the next. It was found some time later in a nearby city. The district court ruled that Hanjin was responsible for the full amount of the loss. Convinces us that this was error. Wanted to purchase some Black & Decker power tools that were manufactured in a plant located in Shenzhen. As there is no material distinction between them for present purposes.). It was an intermodal contract. The waybill said: [d]elivery will be made to the Consignee named. The waybill provided that it was to be governed by the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading. Which is generally in force in the United States. It was transported by rail to Chicago. Where it was scheduled to be picked up by a motor carrier and taken to the Indiana warehouse. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1704.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tory Hall was covered by a disability benefits policy underwritten by Life Insurance Co. of North America (LINA). This perquisite of employment is part of a welfare benefit plan covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. That coverage was furnished under a group certificate issued by New York Life Insurance Co. to the Texas Society of Certified Public Accountants Insurance Trust. 29 U.S.C. §1132(a)(1)(B) that the reduction is improper. Appellate jurisdiction is secure: the judgment was entered on February 25. The notice of appeal was filed on March 22. This motion was filed after the period allowed by Fed. Other Benefits is a defined term. Clauses of this kind not only reduce the employer's outlay for disability coverage (and thus enable the employer to provide additional fringe benefits from a given budget) but also control the moral hazard of insurance that is. The chance that the existence of insurance will increase the likelihood of the insured event. People who know that their full income will continue after they stop working may take more risks in their daily lives and will not try as hard to return to work after injury or illness. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/04/04-60014.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fulbruge III Clerk was liable for 1996 and 1997 deficiencies in income tax and for additions to tax. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. He contends that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1261.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of which she was the executive director. Arising out of activities No. 01 1261 3 that she was alleged to have committed as Discovery's director. Process or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of the [Bankruptcy Code]. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2903_010.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On behalf of himself and all persons that FedEx Ground employed there as local package delivery drivers who were or are improperly classified as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/01-1110.htm">01-1110 -- U.S. V. $9,020.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY -- 02/13/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> In this civil forfeiture case. Claimant's motion to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees is granted. <p> Rule C(6) of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims governs the procedures for filing a claim in a civil forfeiture case. <em>See . This court has remarked that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/00-2451.htm">00-2451 -- U.S. V. CITY OF LAS CRUCES -- 05/07/2002<BR></A><BR> INTRODUCTION</strong> <p> This is an appeal from the district court's order dismissing the United States' suit to quiet title to water rights in a portion of the Rio Grande River. The purpose of the Reclamation Act was to facilitate irrigation of arid and semi arid western territories and states by providing for the construction of large scale irrigation works. <em>See Henkel v. The Project is one that grew out of the Act. It is expansive. Just below Elephant Butte Reservoir is Caballo Reservoir. Water is released into the Rio Grande riverbed. The water is then diverted by one of six diversion dams into canals running on either side of the river. Riverwater is further diverted into channels and ditches running to farmland. The water is used to irrigate crops. The process is repeated several times over the length of the Project to irrigate land in both southeastern New Mexico and western Texas. <p> Irrigation in the United States is not the sole use of Project water. Project water is also used outside of the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1786_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1681_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is a sequel to Harkins v. We held that the members of the operating crew of a gambling boat that is most of the time moored rather than sailing are nevertheless </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0412p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that Budd qualified as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0036n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Appellant maintains the district court's ruling on its motion for summary judgment was in error. Rafael DeLaCruz was a passenger on a vessel owned by the Appellant. Was capable of carrying 149 passengers. Cruises were conducted along the Clinton River in Mt. Was acting as master of the vessel. There were also two crewmembers aboard Carl Saad and Susan Bremer along with Carol DeLaura. The M/V CLINTON FRIENDSHIP was chartered on June 3. Was in attendance along with some of his friends. The decedent was described as a good athlete and a marathon runner who had military training. Saad was working on the upper deck and Bremer on the lower level. The vessel was returning to its berth when DeLaCruz and others gathered at the stern. DeLaCruz's companions were unconcerned and returned to their dancing and socializing. As she was emptying trash. As the men were purposefully swimming away from the boat and out of range of the life rings. It is undisputed that DeLaCruz was not intoxicated by Michigan's legal standards and that he jumped into the water voluntarily. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0560n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that Arnold was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0447n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0587n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Held that Defendants were immune from suit because Willamette had met the statutory requirements for contractor immunity under Kentucky's workers' compensation law. We have determined that the district court was correct in granting summary judgment for the Defendants. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0257n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Giles brought suit against Ford for negligence after he was injured while making a delivery to Ford's Kentucky Truck Plant ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0112p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kentucky were exposed over many years to dangerous radioactive substances without their knowledge. Four such workers and members of their families have sued General Electric (GE). Factual background The Paducah Gas Diffusion Plant (PDGP) is a sprawling industrial plant located on a 3. It was built by the federal government in the early 1950s as part of an initial foray into uranium processing. Its three successive operators have all been named as defendants in this suit. They are Union Carbide (formerly known as Carbide and Chemicals Company. 800 individuals have been employed by the PGDP at any one time. The primary purpose of the PGDP is and always has been to enrich uranium. The solid uranium is then converted into a gaseous form and forced through a series of membranes that increase the concentration of uranium 235. This </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0105n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Giles brought suit against Ford for negligence after he was injured while making a delivery to Ford's Kentucky Truck Plant ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/02-8002.htm">02-8002 -- U.S. V. WAYT -- 08/07/2002<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/02-5035.htm">02-5035 -- LEONOFF V. STATE OF OKLAHOMA -- 03/14/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0102p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Part II (Adverse Employment Action) of the majority opinion was joined by BOGGS. Part IV (Punitive Damages) was joined by MARTIN. In which he was joined by MARTIN. In which he was joined by BOGGS. We decide that a thirty seven day suspension without pay constitutes an adverse employment action regardless of whether the suspension is followed by a reinstatement with back pay. In which position Ellis earned more pay than he would have if he had continued working in the forklift position. White was the only female working in the Maintenance of Way department at the Tennessee Yard. White's immediate supervisor was foreman Bill Joiner. He also admitted that he did not believe that the Maintenance of Way department was an appropriate place for women to work. Joiner repeatedly expressed this belief to her while she was working under his supervision. Another Burlington Northern employee agreed at trial that there was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/opinions.pl?CASENUM=&TITLE=&puid=0&FROMDATE=01%2F03%2F2005&TODATE=01%2F09%2F2005&OPINNUM=">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <font size=+1> Opinions in the cases listed below were filed by the U.S. NOTE: The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063138p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. An ion test was conducted on the currency. It is stated here for purposes of background only. 2 1 form from Aguasviva. He was required to file a verified statement of interest within 30 days if he desired to intervene in the forfeiture proceeding. His attorney filed an affirmation that argued that the motion for default judgment should be denied because Aguasviva's possession of the money was related to his legitimate business activities. Aguasviva failed to comply with the We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The most significant requirement is that the claimant must timely file a verified statement of interest. The requirement </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062099p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sullivan immediately noted that the vessel was traveling faster than appropriate and he attempted to slow the vessel in order to perform the docking maneuvers. It concluded that: (1) the collision was caused solely by the negligence of the Astro Libra's pilots. 1 (2) the negligent pilots were not employees of Moran. (4) the John Turecamo was seaworthy. (5) the Claimants were liable for damages caused to the John Turecamo. All of which they contend are subject to plenary review. We may do so only if we conclude that the court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous or its conclusions of law are erroneous. The District Court found that Sullivan was an independent contractor who was under the control of the Master of the Astro Libra. The court concluded that Sullivan was not an employee of Moran. 3 1 P. 52(a). The Claimants challenge the District Court's conclusion that the negligence of the Astro Libra's pilots was the sole cause of the collision. This claim has two components: (1) that Sullivan was a Moran employee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-40550.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. General maritime law alleging that he was injured while working on Appellant's vessel. Trial was set for April 9. Appellant argues it was prejudiced by the district court's dismissal of the action without prejudice and asks this Court to reverse the district court and order it to conduct further hearings on the motion or dismiss the case with prejudice. A dismissal under this paragraph is without prejudice. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051259np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue before us on appeal is. As it was before the District Court. Is seeking to recover demurrage1 resulting from two Charter Party Agreements between Arcadia and Appellee. It is undisputed that. It is also undisputed that Sun has paid Arcadia nothing. The issue is whether. Or Demurrage is the parties' agreed upon amount of damages to be paid for a ship's delay caused by a default of the charterers at either the beginning or end of a ship's journey. 251 (1885)). 2 1. whether the resolution of this dispute is covered by the Charter Party Agreements' dispute resolution clause and its one year limitation of actions. The District Court concluded that Arcadia's claims against Sun were barred by the one year limitation in the original Charter Party Agreements. We will affirm. I. The facts are not disputed. Arcadia was the owner of the vessel. Sun was the charterer. The Charter Party Agreements were fairly standardized contracts on a form called the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/05/02-8117.htm">02-8117 -- WAYT V. MILLER -- 05/05/2003<BR></A><BR> A person claiming entitlement to the defendant property must file a verified claim within ten days of actual or publication notice. <em>Id. </em> It also explained that an answer to the Government's complaint was due within twenty days of the claim's filing. <em>Id. </em> <p> After receiving the notice. The sole explanation for the failure to file a timely claim is that [Ms. Miller's alleged breach could have been established under the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/00-1132.htm">00-1132 -- SPAHR V. SECCO -- 06/03/2003<BR></A><BR> Was unenforceable due to Spahr's mental incapacity. Spahr </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041816po1.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge IT IS NOW ORDERED that the published Opinion in the above case filed February 7. It is damnum </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034717np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will dismiss the appeal. Three of whom are plaintiffs' decedents. The practical result of this ruling was to bar plaintiffs from recovering non pecuniary damages. 624 (1978) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/03-1251.htm">03-1251 -- KEMPF V. CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS -- 02/11/2004<BR></A><BR> Charlotte Kempf claims to have timely appealed the order. She also argues that the City and Joshua Kempf are agents of Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan. That Joshua Kempf is an agent of former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill. Kempf appeals. <p> Because Kempf is pro se. It is not our role to be an advocate for a pro se litigant. <u>Id.</u> We review a dismissal under Fed. We are unable to discern a claim upon which relief may be granted. We agree with the district court's finding that while the factual allegations are fairly clear. The claims Kempf asserts on the basis of those allegations are not legally cognizable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033624np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse the judgment of the District Court. Among her responsibilities was keeping clean the kitchen and galley area. Fasold claims the refrigerator was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033515p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. The EPA concluded remedial action was necessary to protect human health. Was responsible for the lead contamination. Was long 3 since out of business. Alleging it was responsible for Price Battery's CERCLA liability as a successor in interest. Exide is General Battery's successor. The disputed issue is whether General Battery. Was a successor to Price Battery. The relevant aspects of the Price/General transaction are as follows. Price Battery was owned by a single shareholder. A seat on General's board of directors.1 At The only Price Battery asset nominally excluded from the transaction was its real property. When the deed was transferred to General for $1.00. 000 General Battery shares were valued at approximately $1 million and represented 4.537% of General's outstanding equity. William Price Sr.'s resulting stake in General Battery was comparable to that of the company's cofounders. Was required under the agreement to immediately change its name to Price Investment Company and to retain $150. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033205np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court had jurisdiction in this admiralty action under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 and we have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(A). We will exercise plenary review on this appeal as we are deciding the case through the application of legal principles on the basis of essentially undisputed facts. The parties have engaged in extensive discovery from the time of the filing of Plaintiff's Complaint until its notice to Defendants of its intent 2 to arbitrate on February 28. 980 F.2d 912 (3d Cir. 1992) (explaining that waiver is appropriate where the `demand for arbitration came long after the suit commenced and when both parties had engaged in extensive discovery'). Pa. 2000) (holding that defendant waived its right to arbitration where there was substantial delay in asserting its arbitration rights thereby causing prejudice to Plaintiff). We also are satisfied that the scheduling order of February 25. Providing that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTcxNDBfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7140_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the order certifying this punitive damages class must be vacated because there is no evidence by which the district court could ascertain the limits of either the fund or the aggregate value of punitive claims against it. Thus plaintiffs have failed to satisfy one of the presumptively necessary conditions for limited fund treatment under Ortiz v. While we expressly limit our holding to the conclusion that class certification is incompatible with Ortiz. The circumstances warrant some discussion of whether the order is incompatible with the Supreme Court's intervening decision in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Are published together at In re Simon II Litigation. Will be referred to collectively as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTYyMjFfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-6221_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> RICHARD WILL. Is not a bar to recovery. 1 Richard Will. The action was brought by plaintiffs appellees. That action was concluded by a judgment of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The defendants' assertion of that judgment as a bar to the present action was the basis for the motion that culminated in the order giving rise to this appeal. Rejecting the contention that this appeal is taken from a nonappealable interlocutory order. Since he did not have direct involvement in these events. Is framed by the allegations of the complaint. Those allegations must be accepted as true at this stage of the litigation because defendants have moved for judgment on the pleadings. The background facts that follow are taken from the complaint. Is president and sole stockholder of Ferncliff Associates. The corporate address is the same as the home address of the Hallocks. Richard Hallock was the victim of identity theft. No evidence of any violation of the cited statutes was found in the materials seized. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTYyMjFfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-6221_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> RICHARD WILL. Is not a bar to recovery. 1 Richard Will. The action was brought by plaintiffs appellees. That action was concluded by a judgment of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The defendants' assertion of that judgment as a bar to the present action was the basis for the motion that culminated in the order giving rise to this appeal. Rejecting the contention that this appeal is taken from a nonappealable interlocutory order. Since he did not have direct involvement in these events. Is framed by the allegations of the complaint. Those allegations must be accepted as true at this stage of the litigation because defendants have moved for judgment on the pleadings. The background facts that follow are taken from the complaint. Is president and sole stockholder of Ferncliff Associates. The corporate address is the same as the home address of the Hallocks. Richard Hallock was the victim of identity theft. No evidence of any violation of the cited statutes was found in the materials seized. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb97/96-1090.wpd.html">EXCELL, INC. V. STERLING BOILER & MECH., INC.<BR></A><BR> The primary question raised by Sterling on appeal is whether the district court correctly interpreted the forum selection clause in the parties' contract to preclude removal of the case. The clause is ambiguous and can be interpreted to allow venue in both state district court in El Paso County and in federal district court. Which is also located in El Paso County. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTAyNjctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0267-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> J.) dismissing the admiralty claim of carrier against shipper upon the finding following a bench trial that the carrier was responsible for a fire aboard ship caused by hazardous cargo. Ltd. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA3MzMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0733-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge) granted the remand motion and denied defendants' motion for reconsideration on the basis that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) prohibited the court from entertaining the motion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The district court's order denying the defendants' motion for reconsideration is vacated. The court's order granting the plaintiff's motion to remand to state court is vacated. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions for the court to deny the motion to remand and to conduct further proceedings. A plaintiff will be deemed to have waived his objection to removal by filing his motion for remand after the statutory period for doing so has run. That a) the remand granted by the district court in this case was made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Which prohibits a defendant from removing an action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction if any defendant </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA3MzMgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-0733%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge) granted the remand motion and denied defendants' motion for reconsideration on the ground that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) prohibited the court from entertaining the motion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 The district court's order denying the defendants' motion for reconsideration is vacated. The court's order granting the plaintiff's motion to remand to state court is vacated. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions for the court to deny the motion to remand and to conduct further proceedings. A plaintiff will be deemed to have waived his objection to removal by filing his motion for remand after the statutory period for doing so has run. That a) the remand granted by the district court in this case was made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Which prohibits a defendant from removing an action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction if any defendant </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept96/96-6118.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. MADDEN<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. pauperis. Alleging the property was used to facilitate the commission of a drug offense. P. 41(e) because his criminal case was complete and that even if were to construe Mr. Equitable relief was not appropriate because Mr. Which is a part of the federal rule governing the issuance and execution of search warrants and suppression of evidence obtained as a result of unlawful searches and seizures. Provides in pertinent part: A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure or by the deprivation of property may move the district court for the district in which the property was seized for the return of the property on the ground that such person is entitled to lawful possession of the property. P. 41(e) is contained in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We have held </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200613204.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court concluded that it was bound by our prior panel decision in Hines v. Plaintiffs contend that Hines was abrogated by Miles v. In which the Supreme Court concluded that recovery for nonpecuniary loss in the wrongful death of a seaman was not available under general maritime law. Wages for seamen who become ill or are injured 2 while serving aboard a vessel.1 Plaintiffs then filed this suit for declaratory relief on the question of their obligations in this matter. Concluding that it was bound by our rule in Hines. We described this kind of cause of action: The seaman's action for maintenance and cure may be seen as one designed to put the sailor in the same position he would have been had he continued to work: the seaman receives a maintenance remedy. Because working seamen normally are housed and fed aboard ship. Whether punitive damages may be recovered in maintenance and cure actions is a question of law that we review de novo. The central question here is whether we may depart from our prior ruling in Hines. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2002/01-11072.opn.html">ESFELD V. COSTA CROCIERE, S.P.A. (4/30/2002, NO. 01-11072)<BR></A><BR> The question on appeal is whether. Appellants are three elderly married couples who were injured in the accident. All three couples are United States citizens. The Appellants were on a Western Pacific cruise that had begun in Singapore and was set to terminate in Hong Kong. The cruise ship upon which they were traveling. Was owned and operated by Costa.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516235.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He is currently in the midst of a series of corruption trials in that country. The allegations are that Montesinos committed a host of crimes while he was in office. The picture is one of a man who has never been troubled by anything resembling a moral scruple. The facts about how he was brought to justice form the stage on which this lawsuit plays. 2 For decades journalists and politicians had been leveling accusations of corruption against Montesinos. At 1.1 That alone might not have done him in. As it turned out Montesinos was like a serial killer who relishes the opportunity to relive his crimes he had videotaped many of his dirty deeds. Announced that he was dissolving the intelligence agency and that he would step down after holding new elections. The former spy chief was also something of a magician. He had one more magic act up his Because this is an appeal from a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) dismissal. The operative facts are those alleged in the complaint. Where outside sources are cited. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514254.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case was brought as a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. While the case was being prepared for trial. The Dealers' appeal is No. 05 14543. Westgate's appeal is No. 05 15152. This is the second time the Dealers' breach of contract claims against Ford have been before this court. On the Dealers' petition for a writ of The petition for writ of mandamus is No. 05 14254. We have consolidated this petition with the appeals designated in note 2. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr95/93-8981.opa.html">SMITH V. AMERICAN INTL. LIFE ASSURANCE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Smith v. The only issue worthy of discussion is whether the district court erred in utilizing a 12% pre judgment interest rate.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-30321.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Over 1500 personal injury and property damage claims were filed against the vessel interests. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Claiming that the fund is inequitable. The Attorneys assert that jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3). Which allows appeals of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414462.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs appellants ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413308op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412037.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM: The sole issue in this admiralty appeal is whether correspondence from Kevin Upmal. In March and May of 2002 was sufficient written notice of a claim. Was untimely. Were sufficient to begin the running of the limitation period. Was seriously injured while diving near Marathon Key. Was hospitalized. McLeod sent a letter to Niemeyer that complained that 2 Upmal was entitled to maintenance and cure from Paradise Divers and Upmal owed providers of medical services tens of thousands of dollars: Please be advised that this office has been retained by Kevin Upmal relative to his on the job injury occurring on or about June 6. Is entitled to receive maintenance and cure from the date of this accident to the point of maximum medical improvement without regard to liability. After he had reviewed the insurance documents that were supplied on behalf of Paradise Divers. Both unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure under the general maritime laws: [W]e have reviewed the CIGNA Insurance Company </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/95-2192.opa.html">BOUCHARD TRANSP. CO. V. FLORIDA DEPT. OF ENV. PROTECTION<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bouchard Transp. The district court either declined to rule or deferred ruling on various motions in which DEP argued it was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Two tug barge flotillas and a freighter were involved in a collision near Tampa Bay. Was served with notice in all three limitation actions.<p> DEP filed answers and affirmative claims for relief under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. A motions panel of this court held that the district court's order compelling DEP to participate in mediation was immediately appealable. We agree. <i>See</i> 11th Cir.R. 27 1(f) (ruling of a motions panel is not binding on panel to which case is assigned for disposition on merits). DEP argues that we have jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court's order rejected its assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity. <i>See Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v. We have jurisdiction to review the court's order directing DEP to mediate. <i>See Collins v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/95-6267.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. TWO PARCELS OF REAL PROP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The complaints should have been dismissed because the conclusory allegations did not comply with the strict pleading requirements in forfeiture cases.<p> 2. Or should have resulted in a summary judgment for claimants.<p> 3. The court improperly considered the claimants' invocation of the Fifth Amendment in response to discovery questions in concluding there was probable cause for forfeiture.<p> Finding no merit to any of these assignments of error. We affirm.<p> Law of Forfeiture<p> <p> Federal statutes provide that property is forfeited to the Government when it is used or intended to be used to facilitate illegal drug activities. Then it is the Government's burden to show probable cause for the belief that the property to be forfeited is substantially connected to drug dealing. 21 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312185.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jose Arias (who was charged in the initial indictment. These recruited </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312146.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Moved the circuit court alternatively to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief or for a more definite statement on the ground that the allegations of the complaint were so vague and confusing that a responsive pleading should not be required. Inc. was merged into American Home Products Corporation. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals is a division of Wyeth. Which is the only defendant before us. Who were citizens of Florida. The first question we must decide is whether we have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. We conclude that we have jurisdiction. I. Section 1447(d) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-20470.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Asserting that the seafastenings were inadequately designed or installed and permitted the jackup rig to move during the dry tow. Which was involved in rigging and securing the MR. Noble Denton denied that its seafastenings were negligently designed or installed or that the seafastenings caused the legs to collapse. Which were made by Rodriguez during the construction of the MR. The district court found that the evidence established that the rig's leg would not have collapsed but for a defective weld and that the collapse would have occurred regardless of the seafastenings used to secure the rig to the dry tow barge. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200111072.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question on appeal is whether. Appellants are three elderly married couples who were injured in the accident. All three couples are United States citizens. The Appellants were on a Western Pacific Honorable David D. Ct. 817 (1938). 3 cruise that had begun in Singapore and was set to terminate in Hong Kong. The cruise ship upon which they were traveling. Was owned and operated by Costa. Although Costa is an Italian corporation. 2 the Appellants have argued throughout this litigation that all of Costa's marketing. Sales for the United States are done through an office in Miami with over 110 employees. The advertising was successful with respect to them. Arrangements for the trip then were made through a company affiliated with Costa that was located in South Florida. It is as a result of these Miami based sales activities by Costa. Costa was acquired in part by Carnival Corporation. Which is headquartered in Miami. When the cruise ship was docked in the Vietnam port of call. None of these entities were parties to the subsequent federal litigation at issue in this appeal. 5 3 the doctrine of forum non conveniens. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914481.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district judge decided that the government should have known earlier that the properties. Were purchased with drug money and dismissed the case with prejudice. Because he was about to commence a prison sentence for drug trafficking. Title was placed in the names of Elsie Elsie Keith testified at the April 7. Both deeds were recorded properly in the Jackson County. Homer Carrell had intimidated a federal witness who was providing information regarding the investigation of his drug trafficking activities to a federal grand jury. Was returned on September 7. The government alleged in its complaint that the farm was subject to forfeiture on the same grounds as those in this complaint.2 The two properties at issue in this case were transferred to Scottie Carrell by February 2. 1995 deeds that were duly recorded in the Jackson County land records. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice based upon our former panel decision in United States v. 408 Peyton Road. This claim was denied because she lacked standing to enter the case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914481.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district judge decided that the government should have known earlier that the properties. Were purchased with drug money and dismissed the case with prejudice. Because he was about to commence a prison sentence for drug trafficking. Title was placed in the names of Elsie Keith and Scottie. Both deeds were recorded properly in the Jackson County. Homer Carrell had intimidated a federal witness who was providing information regarding the investigation of his drug trafficking activities to a federal grand jury. Was returned on September 7. The government alleged in its complaint that the farm was subject to forfeiture on the same grounds as those in this complaint.2 The two properties at issue in this case were transferred to Scottie Carrell by February 2. 1995 deeds that were duly recorded in the Jackson County land records. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice based upon our former panel decision in United States v. 408 Peyton Road. That issue was not addressed given the disposition of the case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914328.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because there was a substantial question as to whether the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/97-5144.man.html">LIPCON V. UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON (8/5/1998, NO. 97-5144)<BR></A><BR> We are confronted with the important question of whether the anti waiver provisions of the United States securities laws preclude enforcement of certain choice of law and forum selection clauses ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913824.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that section 632 was inapplicable because the Federal Reserve's cause of action was statutory and therefore was not a suit </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913824.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that section 632 was inapplicable because the Federal Reserve's cause of action was statutory and therefore was not a suit </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/97-6354.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR HIGHWAY 195(12/31/1998, NO. 97-6354)<BR></A><BR> Woods contends that summary judgment should not have been granted because (a) she did not receive proper notice of the forfeiture action and (b) there are disputed material facts concerning the posting of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/97-8899.man.html">KOBATAKE V. DUPONT DE NEMOURS (12/3/1998, NO. 97-8899)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge.</P> <P> PER CURIAM:</P> <P> The judgement in this case is affirmed for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough and well reasoned order filed on July 18. Senior District Judge:</P> <P> These related actions are before the court on defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints in both litigations. Plaintiffs rely on the same legal theories in both cases to counter defendants' argument.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </P> <P> Plaintiffs are nursery owners whose plants were allegedly damaged by Benlate 50DF. While the jury was deliberating. (3) any and all claims which might have been alleged. Or which were alleged. Which provide that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-3765.man.html">ASSOCIATED TRANSP. LINE, INC. V. PRODUCTOS FITOSANITARIOS PROFICOL EL CARMEN, S.A. (12/8/1999, NO. 98-3765)<BR></A><BR> The shipping documents were prepared and signed in Colombia and showed that Transport would make stops in Texas and Florida before taking the herbicide to the West Indies. The herbicide leaked onto the deck of the ship while it was in Florida waters. The chemical composition of the herbicide was far less harmful. The clean up and disposal of the spill would have cost approximately $15. Proficol contends that neither statute applies because there was no </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976354.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Woods contends that summary judgment should not have been granted because (a) she did not receive proper notice of the forfeiture action and (b) there are disputed material facts concerning the posting of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976354.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Woods contends that summary judgment should not have been granted because (a) she did not receive proper notice of the forfeiture action and (b) there are disputed material facts concerning the posting of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2003/02-11990.opn.html">HOUSEHOLD BANK V. JFS GROUP (2/7/2003, NO. 02-11990)<BR></A><BR> It will file a customer's tax return electronically with the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19965123.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Baltins should have brought suit in Illinois. Only in courts whose situs is within the State of Illinois and Customer hereby submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of the state of Illinois and the jurisdiction of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. A trading order was entered in the Baltins' account. The Baltins moved to dismiss the court proceedings and to have the case transferred to arbitration. You will have agreed to submit all future disputes with Linnco. Is 9 U.S.C. § 9. The United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any 2 1 United States Court in and for the district wherein an arbitration award was made may make an order </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb95/93-2706.html">UNIMAC CO. V. C.F. OCEAN SERVICE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Unimac Co. v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The central issue presented in this admiralty case is whether a carrier's misdelivery of goods constitutes a deviation such that the one year statute of limitations and $500 per package limit on liability set forth in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/95-3006.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-4093.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956267.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The complaints should have been dismissed because the conclusory allegations did not comply with the strict pleading requirements in forfeiture cases. 2. Or should have resulted in a summary judgment for claimants. 3. The court improperly considered the claimants' invocation of the Fifth Amendment in response to discovery questions in concluding there was probable cause for forfeiture. Law of Forfeiture Federal statutes provide that property is forfeited to the Government when it is used or intended to be used to facilitate illegal drug activities. Then it is the Government's burden to show probable cause for the belief that the property to be forfeited is substantially connected to drug dealing. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(3) (1988) (incorporating procedures in 19 U.S.C. § 1615 (1982) for shifting burden of proof in civil forfeiture proceeding). 1012 Germantown Road. The critical issue in a forfeiture case is whether the Government has shown probable cause which. Is sufficient to permit forfeiture. 1. Specifically Rule E(2)(a) requires a complaint to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/99-13824.man.html">FED. RESERVE BANK OF ATLANTA V. THOMAS (7/31/2000, NO. 99-13824)<BR></A><BR> Finding that section 632 was inapplicable because the Federal Reserve's cause of action was statutory and therefore was not a suit </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954708.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM: Appellant Zuki Teria is a Panamanian Corporation. IMS executed on its maritime lien and the M/V INAGUA TANIA was arrested on March 1. There was no dispute that the vessel thereafter sailed from Fort Lauderdale and is no longer in the court's jurisdiction. The Orders from which appellant Zuki Teria appeals are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/95-2418.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952192.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. declined to rule or deferred ruling on various motions in which DEP argued it was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Two tug barge flotillas and a freighter were involved in a collision near Tampa Bay. Was served with notice in all three limitation actions. FLA.STAT.ANN. §§ The parties dispute whether there was contact between all three vessels. Whether there were actually two collisions. 1 376.011 to 376.21 (West 1988). A motions panel of this court held that the district court's order compelling DEP to participate in mediation was immediately appealable. See 11th Cir.R. 27 1(f) (ruling of a motions panel is not binding on panel to which case is assigned for disposition on merits). DEP argues that we have jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court's order rejected its assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity. We have jurisdiction to review the court's order directing DEP to mediate. 1205 (11th Cir.1993) (holding that an order declining immediately to rule on qualified Like a immunity public pending trial is appealable). official's qualified immunity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-20029.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 120 (5th Cir. 1970) (concluding that § 1292(b) review is inappropriate for challenges to a judge's discretion in granting or denying transfers under § 1404(a)). Clearly the transfer order in the case at hand is not a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The transfer order is not within the class of interlocutory orders in admiralty cases subject to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3). In addition ­and contrary to Blessey Marine's contention­ the transfer order is not appealable pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. Blessey Marine has not requested that we treat its notice of appeal as anything other than what it is. Where other avenues of relief have been traversed without success. We currently lack jurisdiction over this appeal and it is therefore dismissed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/95-4509.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19938981.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The only issue worthy of discussion is whether the district court erred in utilizing a 12% pre judgment interest rate.2 We review an award of See pre judgment interest under ERISA for abuse of discretion. The district court observed that although the determination of the appropriate pre judgment interest rate under ERISA is a matter of federal law. Such interest shall be We find that AILACNY's other arguments are meritless and affirm without opinion. AILACNY proposes that the use of the section 1961(a) rate will further the goal of uniformity underlying ERISA. Uniformity will be undermined if district courts are allowed to exercise discretion and apply state interest rates without the presence of special circumstances. We recognize that some circuit courts have approved the use of the section 1961(a) post judgment rate to compute pre judgment interest. There is no similar statute mandating the pre judgment Furthermore. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/99-14328.man.html">NOBLE V. UNITED STATES (6/29/2000, NO. 99-14328)<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because there was a substantial question as to whether the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. </EM> ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2107.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PLLC</U> was on brief. P.A.</U> were on brief. Have glossed the text of the rule. BACKGROUND</STRONG></FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1839.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Barlow</U> were on brief. The reasons for this trend are difficult to pinpoint. Some commentators have linked it with heightened efforts to fight organized crime and drug trafficking. Which stated that:</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-40307.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Primarily at issue is REVERSED and whether the employer violated a Jones Act duty. I. Antoinette Harrison was born in 1960. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Harrison is 5'2 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1412.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Varela Fernandez was on brief. Were on brief. It was bound for Japan. I The voyage of the Pacific Swan is part of a modern circumferential trade. Uranium from the United States is sent to Japan to fuel nuclear energy reactors. Which is turned into nuclear fuel (either RepU fuel. The waste is vitrified according to specifications that have been approved by French and Japanese governments and placed in casks that meet criteria set forth by the International Atomic Energy Agency in its Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material. Both the waste and the fuel are returned to Japan on board specially designed ships that meet the standards of the International Maritime Organization's Code for the Safe Carriage of Irradiated Nuclear Fuel. Even if they are not territorial waters. The case is not moot. Review of entry of summary judgment is de novo. The issues presented are ones of law and our review is plenary. Mayagezanos has refined its argument to a single attack: the federal courts have jurisdiction to consider this action under NEPA and the United States's failure to regulate the passage of such nuclear waste through its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1977.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Avil‚s & Col¢n Morales LLP were on brief. Col¢n & Mart¡nez was on brief. We affirm on the alternative ground that the appellee was immune from suit under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1124.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seeking both a declaration that the dispute was not arbitrable and a provisional order staying arbitration pendente lite. Because the district court's stay order is in the nature of an injunction. We have appellate jurisdiction. See 9 U.S.C. 16(a)(2) (authorizing an immediate appeal from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1094.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Zelle and Zelle & Larson were on brief for St. Were on brief for Ferrara & DiMercurio. The commercial fishing vessel F/V TWO FRIENDS was destroyed by fire on July 3. Was expressly excluded from policy coverage. Paul's refusal to pay was a breach of the insurance contract and constituted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1496.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee Drug Enforcement Administration. I. BACKGROUND Appellants Arnaldo and Eric are brothers of Luis Hiram Ortiz Cameron ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2002/00-14975.opn.html">BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC. V. CITY OF N. MIAMI (3/1/2002, NO. 00-14975)<BR></A><BR> The City was required to clean up the land by a consent decree it had entered into with the United States Environmental Protection Agency in settlement of a lawsuit the EPA had brought against the City under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. The City believed that Blasland was not entitled to payment because it had been negligent in doing the work. This litigation is the fruit of their disagreement. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1727.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jones & Houston were on brief for appellant. Ltd. were on brief for appellee C&G Excavating. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND El/Cap and Henry Marine were two of several companies that participated in towing C&G equipment to a dredging project in Saco. C&G's negligence claims were brought before the district court of 1 This suit initially surfaced against the backdrop of a variety of legal disputes between contractors and the Transamerica Premier Insurance Company. All claims were settled before trial with the exception of the crossclaims between C&G and El/Cap and Henry Marine that are before us now. 2 Maine under both diversity jurisdiction. Many of the facts essential to a finding of negligence were vigorously contested by the parties at trial. Henry Marine was ultimately given the towing job. Arranged to have Henry Marine leave the intracoastal waterway and meet El/Cap's tug. In the open seas outside of Hereford Inlet.2 None of the equipment was damaged while towed by Henry Marine in the period prior to El/Cap's involvement in the tow. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2212.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Boyle were on briefs for appellant. Kydd with whom Kneeland & Kydd was on brief for appellee. Kenneth Lewis was injured while welding on 2 the M/V NOSAC RANGER. We affirm. 9 The relevant events are straightforward although there 10 is some conflict in the testimony as to details. As third 14 assistant engineer he was expected to do some welding. That he 22 would have assigned an assistant if asked. Lewis alleged that 11 his injuries resulted from the defendant's negligence and 12 that the vessel was unseaworthy in several respects. He asserted that the ship's workshop 14 was dangerously cluttered. The judge heard 25 argument from the parties and then instructed the jury that 3 3 1 whether Ricciuti's conduct was negligent depended on the 2 relative responsibilities of Lewis and his supervisors. 6 and considering whether in light of those responsibilities 7 Ricciuti should have supervised him more carefully. Neither 8 party objected after the instruction was given. 9 The general raise or waive rule for objections to jury 10 instructions applies to a court's answer to a question asked 11 by the jury during deliberations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2107.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: On page 36. Line 9: change </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1643.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Jenkens & Gilchrist was on brief. Were on brief. Sjogren and Sher & Blackwell were on brief. That the party was not free before the agency to seek to undo the court judgment. To the extent that the FMC's order is prospective and does not involve sums awarded by the judgment entered. Collection costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to the terms of PRMSA's bill of lading to SOS.1 Jurisdiction was under the maritime and 1. PRMSA's lawsuit in federal district court was filed by an agent of PRMSA. The attorneys' fees provision of the tariff upon which the bill of lading was based. It asserted that the attorneys' fees tariff provision was unreasonable under sections 17 and 18(a) of the Shipping Act of 1916. Because the distinction between PRMSA and PRMMI is unimportant to the disposition of this petition. SOS's motion for a stay of the district court proceedings was the first time that SOS argued before the district court that the attorneys' fees provision might be illegal or unreasonable and thus unenforceable because it was unilateral. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1265.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Segal & Lewis were on brief for appellants. Farmer were on brief for appellee. The months of December through April are the prime season for condominium sales in the area. The needed repairs on the damaged units were not complet ed until May 1989. They challenge only the consequential damages award.1 Although the district court ruling denying the Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law is subject to plenary review. The jury verdict will not be set aside unless no rational factfinder could have reached the same verdict on the evidence adduced at trial. A district court ruling denying a motion for new trial will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion which results in a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/99-14481.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CARRELL (5/29/2001, NO. 99-14481)<BR></A><BR> The district judge decided that the government should have known earlier that the properties. Were purchased with drug money and dismissed the case with prejudice. Because he was about to commence a prison sentence for drug trafficking. Title was placed in the names of Elsie Keith and Scottie. Both deeds were recorded properly in the Jackson County. Homer Carrell had intimidated a federal witness who was providing information regarding the investigation of his drug trafficking activities to a federal grand jury. Was returned on September 7. The government alleged in its complaint that the farm was subject to forfeiture on the same grounds as those in this complaint.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2193.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Bradley & Savasuk was on brief for appellants JUNO SRL. With whom Dickerson & Reilly was on brief for appellees S/V ENDEAVOUR. The first issue is what weight private rules and procedures should have in determining the liability of sailing vessels that collide while engaged in the sport of yacht racing. The second issue is what forum shall assess the damages that result from such circumstances. The district court decision is reported. That court ruled that the S/V CHARLES JOURDAN was liable to the S/V ENDEAVOUR after a collision between the two vessels. Found that the ENDEAVOUR was 40% at fault in causing the encounter. Was racing in the La Nioulargue Regatta. Also competing in this Regatta on a different course was the ENDEAVOUR. While the ENDEAVOUR was required to finish its course at Mark A. Was on a similar tack. Was the burdened vessel and was required to keep clear of LA POSTE. Who was sailing slower at seven knots and was to windward of CHARLES JOURDAN converging on a course approximately 40 from that of CHARLES JOURDAN. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/97-8278.opn.html">ITEL CONTAINER CORP. V. M/V "TITAN SCAN" (5/1/1998, NO. 97-8278)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</STRONG></EM></P> <P> Itel is a container leasing company. Where applicable.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1764.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1995 is amended as follows: Bottom of page 8. Was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellees. In the months before the Escape was lost. Giragosian's adverse experiences relating to the vessel were 1 The Giragosians also counterclaimed for violations of Mass. The engine stalled as Giragosian was entering Scituate Harbor after a pleasure cruise. He was unable to restart the engine. Someone noticed that the Escape was lying very low in the water and the Coast Guard was called to pump the boat out. The two planned to sail the Escape to the Bay Point Marina in Quincy to have it hauled for the season. Giragosian and Likely rowed to where the Escape was moored. That it was rainwater. Because the batteries were low. As the winds were light. He estimated that he was sailing at about six knots. Giragosian noticed that his floorboards were now covered with sloshing water and that they had begun to float. Could not find one as the water was now flooding the cockpit and the flashlight was underwater. Could raise noone. 4 It was getting close to sunset. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-31072.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. The judgement of the district court is affirmed. Norman Sanamo was working as a casing crew pusher for the Sladco casing crew that had been assigned to perform services aboard ENSCO RIG 67.3 On February 9. Sanamo and his crew were transported to the jack up rig via the M/V CIMARRON RIVER. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1740.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On cover sheet. Mergen was on brief. Karen Antrim Raine were on brief. They did not object when the vessel's logbook was introduced into evidence. They suggested that the tail perhaps belonged to a black marlin.4 The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the fish had been snagged in Caribbean waters frequented by the blue (but 2Former section 644.7(d) is now recodified as 50 C.F.R. 644.7(e) (1993). 3To be precise. Appellants do not dispute that the F/V EAGLE EYE is a vessel subject to 50 C.F.R. 644.7(d). They do not dispute that San Juan Harbor lies within this nation's EEZ. 4The black marlin is an unprotected species indigenous to the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean. 4 not the black) marlin. (4) Agent Pickering's opinion that the fish seemed to have been caught only a day or two before the ship had docked. Appellants were barred from advancing it because they had not raised it before the ALJ.6 5Logbooks of this type must be kept as a matter of course by all regulated fishing vessels. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/96-5123.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/99-8145.man.html">MESOCAP IND. LTD. V. TORM LINES (11/12/1999, NO. 99-8145)<BR></A><BR> P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss Mesocap's Complaint because it was filed more than one year after the delivery of goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. Is therefore barred by the one year limitation period of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). Arguing that Torm's COGSA time limitation defense is precluded because Torm substantially deviated from the contract's delivery terms. The containers were discharged at Cotonou. The cargo in the third container was discovered to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1903.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gonzalez & Rodriguez were on brief for American Airlines. Alfaro Delgado with whom Calvesbert & Brown was on brief for Hill Construction Corp. The limitation is valid and applicable. Or delayed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/95-2418.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> </TABLE> <!-- End of real page content --> <!-- kludgy empty paragraph acts as spacer --> <P></P> <!-- This is the place for the lower nav bar and footer --> <!-- the following is Mason-included: footer.htm --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close extra div (opened in header.htm) --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close middle (opened in header.htm) --> <div id="footer"> <div class="footerNav"> <div><!-- getting ridiculous, i know --> <ul> <li><a href="/lii.html" class="nav">about us</a></li> <li><a href="/help/" class="nav">help</a></li> <li><a href="/comments/credits.html" class="nav">© copyright</a></li> </ul> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close ridiculous div --> </div><!-- close footerNav --> </div><!-- close footer --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close collection (opened in header.htm) --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close ours (opened in header.htm) --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close container (opened in header.htm) --> <!-- end of included footer --> </BODY> </HTML> <!-- end of HTML --> <!-- code from here on down --> <!-- input arguments are: a query (optional) --> <!-- to begin with... This init block sets up and runs the query. --> <!-- select correct options based on scope -->