WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORP.

v.

U. S. SMELTING, REFINING & MINING CO.

Citator

Cited By (21 total)

• Reserve Mining Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency & William D. Ruckelshaus, 514 F.2d 492 (8th Cir. 1975)
  …. 555 (D.N.J.1972); City of Louisville v. National Carbide Corp., 81 F.Supp. 177 (W.D.Ky.1948); DeBlois v. Bowers, 44 F. 2d 621 (D.Mass.1930). But see Harris Stanley Coal & Land Co. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 154 F. 2d 450 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 761, 67 S.Ct. Ill, 91 L.Ed. 656 (1946); United States v. Luce, 141 F. 385, 408 (D.Del.1905). Cf. Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311, 326, 48 S.Ct. 311, 72 L.Ed. 587 (1928). We comment further on common law nuisance, see p. 532 infra. . Section…
• Nichimen Co., Inc. v. Farland, 462 F.2d 319 (2d Cir. 1972)
  …rtation in some form, to the fabricator. Bringing the steel sheets to a ship, loading and unloading, and delivering them to the customer, cf. Waterman S.S. Corp. v. United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Co., 155 F. 2d 687 (5 Cir.), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 761, 67 S.Ct. 115, 91 L.Ed. 656 (1946), would have been a different and presumably a much more difficult process than handling the coils. In short, the fact that the act of rolling and banding facilitates storage does not necessarily negate the possibil…
• Mitsui & Co., Ltd. v. Am. Exp. Lines, Inc., 636 F.2d 807 (2d Cir. 1981)
  …lculated. See Brazil Oiticica v. The Bill, 55 F.Supp. 780 (D.Md.) (Chesnut, J.), aff’d per curiam sub nom. Lorentzen v. Brazil Oiticica, Inc., 145 F. 2d 470 (4 Cir. 1944); Waterman S.S. Corp. v. S. R. & M. Co., 155 F. 2d 687 (5 Cir.), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 761, 67 S.Ct. 115, 91 L.Ed. 656 (1946); Petition of Isbrandtsen Company, Inc., 201 F. 2d 281, 286 (2 Cir. 1953); Gulf Italia Company, supra, 263 F. 2d 135; Freedman & Slater, Inc. v. M.V. Tofevo, 222 F.Supp. 964 (S.D.N.Y.1963); India Supply Mission v. S…