GOLDBAUM

v.

UNITED STATES ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (14 total)

• Avera v. Fla. Towing Corp., 322 F.2d 155 (5th Cir. 1963)
  …to motion and stipulation of Avera entered an order allowing the prosecution of the claim in the Florida State Court. This order, followed the pattern of Petition of Red Star Barge Line, Inc., 2 Cir., 1947,160 F. 2d 436, 1947 AMC 524, cert. denied, 331 U.S. 850, 67 S.Ct. 1741, 91 L.Ed. 1859, 1947 AMC 1015.1 The order reserved to the admiralty court determination of the question of the right to limit, the Claimant expressly “waiving any claim of res judicata relevant to the issue of limitation of Petitioner…
• In re the Complaint of Universal Towing Co. v. Barrale, 595 F.2d 414 (8th Cir. 1979)
  …rte Green, 286 U.S. 437, 52 S.Ct. 602, 76 L.Ed. 1212 (1932); Langnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531, 51 S.Ct. 243, 75 L.Ed. 520 (1931); Helena Marine Service, Inc. v. Sioux City, supra; Petition of Red Star Barge Line, 160 F. 2d 436 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 331 U.S. 850, 67 S.Ct. 1741, 91 L.Ed. 1859 (1947). As in the first situation, it is unnecessary to utilize a concourse since the limitation fund is not being apportioned among competing claimants. There is, however, a need to determine the right to limitation —…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• In re S & E Shipping Corp. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 678 F.2d 636 (6th Cir. 1982)
  …liability is limited.13 See Helena Marine Service, Inc. [*644] v. Souix City, 564 F. 2d 15,18 (8th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1006, 98 S.Ct. 1875, 56 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); In re Red Star Barge Line Inc., 160 F. 2d 436 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 331 U.S. 850, 67 S.Ct. 1741, 91 L.Ed. 1859 (1947). This procedure furthers the Limitation Act’s purpose of limiting the shipowner’s liability and the saving to suitors clause’s purpose of preserving the claimant’s right to a jury trial in alternative forums. S…

  ← 1 / 2 →