INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL OPERATING CO., INC.

v.

N. Y. NEDERL. AMERIK STOOMV. MAATS.

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

• Keefe v. Geanakos, 418 F.2d 359 (1st Cir. 1969)
  …not surprisingly we find no decisions closely in point. The district court cited what it termed the well-reasoned opinion of the district court in Parker v. Board of Education, D.Md., 1965, 237 F.Supp. 222, aff’d 4 Cir., 348 F. 2d 464, cert. denied 382 U.S. 1030, 86 S.Ct. 653, 15 L.Ed.2d 543, regarding it “strikingly similar on its facts to the instant case, in that it too involved a high school teacher challenging his dismissal from employment in a public school system because of his assigning ‘Brave New W…
• Alcoa S.S. Co., Inc. v. Charles Ferran & Co., Inc., 383 F.2d 46 (5th Cir. 1967)
  …e of law problem does not involve an Erie or Klaxon3 issue as a federal court resolving an admiralty question does not sit, in effect, as only another state court. See Kenney v. Trinidad Corp., 349 F. 2d 832, 834-835, (5th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1030, 86 S. Ct. 652, 15 L.Ed.2d 542 (1966). Instead, the question to be answered is, when a federal court adopts a state cause of action in an admiralty case, how much non-procedural state law rides along with it? See The Tungus v. Skovgaard, 358 U.S. 58…
• Eyerly Aircraft Co. v. Killian, 414 F.2d 591 (5th Cir. 1969)
  …us and perhaps conflicting intimations on elegantia juris to be found in local decisions’ and is not ‘imprisoned by procedural niceties relating to amendment of pleadings.’” Kenney v. Trinidad Corporation, 5 Cir. 1965, 349 F. 2d 832, 837, cert. den. 382 U.S. 1030, 86 S.Ct. 652, 15 L.Ed.2d 542, quoting in part from Levinson v. Deu-pree, 1953, 345 U.S. 648, 651, 73 S.Ct. 914, 916, 97 L.Ed. 1319, 1324. “The purpose of the Erie doctrine * * * was never to bottle up federal courts with ‘outcome determinative’ and…