WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. ET AL.

v.

S/S LESLIE LYKES ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Hale Container Line, Inc. v. Houston SEA Packing Co., Inc., 137 F.3d 1455 (11th Cir. 1998)
  …, 105 S.Ct. 2361, 86 L.Ed.2d 261 (1985) (the shipper is not required to prove that the carrier was at fault or how the damage might have occurred); Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. M/V "Leslie Lykes", 734 F. 2d 199, 206 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1077, 105 S.Ct. 577, 83 L.Ed.2d 516 (1984); Terman Foods, Inc. v. Omega Lines, 707 F. 2d 1225, 1227 (11th Cir.1983); Blasser Brothers, Inc. v. Northern Pan-American Line, 628 F. 2d 376, 381 (5th Cir.1980). . Sony Magnetic Products Inc. of America, 863 F…
• Elmore v. United States, 843 F.2d 1128 (8th Cir. 1988)
  …953, 93 L.Ed. 2d 1001 (1987); cf. Smith v. Honeywell, Inc., 735 F. 2d 1067, 1069 (8th Cir.1983) (error inadequately preserved where counsel did not request instruction nor alert trial court to the alleged omission in a timely manner), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1077, 105 S.Ct. 576, 83 L.Ed.2d 516 (1984). We will overlook an omission to alert the trial court to the problem only if the failure to give an instruction constitutes plain error. Gander v. Mr. Steak of Sun Ray, Inc., 774 F. 2d 920, 923 (8th Cir.1985)…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• In re the Complaint v. M/V Damodar Tanabe, 903 F.2d 675 (9th Cir. 1990)
  …he Second Circuit reaffirmed the Asbestos view and opened the circuit split wider. The Fifth Circuit then sided with the Second Circuit’s interpretation. In Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. M/V “LESLIE LYKES", 734 F. 2d 199, 207 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1077, 105 S.Ct. 577, 83 L.Ed.2d 516 (1984), the court commented that ”[w]e need not look far upward to reject the Ninth Circuit’s construction of the Fire Statute.” The court then relied on a Supreme Court case (Earle & Stoddart v. Ellerman’s Wilson Line…