CANTEY

v.

MCLAIN LINE, INC., ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Offshore Co. & The Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y. v. Johnie M. Robison, 266 F.2d 769 (5th Cir. 1959)
  …act examine the Administrator’s determination that the plaintiff there was not a member of a crew, and sustained it only after concluding that it was supported by the evidence. Further, the Court’s citation of Bassett in Cantey v. McLain Line, Inc., 312 U.S. 667, 61 S.Ct. 829, 85 L.Ed. 1111, supra, would seem in context to imply that the Court regarded the result in Bassett as reflecting its own independent determination as to the status of the petitioner there, rather than as a decision passing merely on t…
• Senko v. Lacrosse Dredging Corp., 352 U.S. 370 (U.S. 1957)
  …Act is obeyed. This Court has more than once reviewed similar determinations of other fact-finding bodies, and set them aside when satisfied that they did not meet the requirements of the Jones Act or Longshoremen’s Act. Cantey v. McLain Line, Inc., 312 U. S. 667; Norton v. Warner Co., 321 U. S. 565; Desper v. Starved Rock Ferry Co., 342 U. S. 187. The reason is, of course, as the Court said in the Norton case, supra, that “where Congress has provided that those basic rights [conferred by the Jones Act] shal…
• Norton v. Warner Co., 321 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1944)
  …and excluded from recovery under the Jones Act or be denied relief in admiralty. See Maryland Casualty Co. v. Lawson, 94 F. 2d 190; Loverich v. Warner Co., 118 F. 2d 690; Cantey v. McLain Line, 32 F. Supp. 1023, 114 F. 2d 1017, which we reversed in 312 U. S. 667. Affirmed. Mr. Justice Roberts concurs in the result. Cf. the finding of the Deputy Commissisoner in Diomede v. Lowe, 14 F. Supp. 380; 87 F. 2d 296. Sec. 14 (b) makes the first instalment of compensation due on the fourteenth day after the emplo…

Authorities Cited

• S. Chicago Coal & Dock Co. v. Bassett, 309 U.S. 251 (U.S. 1940)