Admiralty Commons^™

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

In Memory Of Professor James E. Bond, Janet Ainsworth

Seattle University Law Review

Janet Ainsworth, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law: In Memory of Professor James E. Bond.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Law School News: Inside Rwu Law's Small 'Admiralty Empire' 10-18-2019, Michael M. Bowden

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nevor V. Moneypenny Holdings, Llc: Availability Of Prejudgment Interest For Mixed Maritime Law And Jones Act Claims, Adam S. Bohanan

Ocean and Coastal Law Journal

In maritime personal injury cases, courts have traditionally seen prejudgment interest as part of the compensation due to a prevailing plaintiff. The goal of ensuring the fullest compensation possible has long been recognized as a basic principle of admiralty law. However, federal appellate courts are split over whether to award prejudgment interest on a mixed claim under general maritime law and the Jones Act. This Note explores this issue in Nevor v. Moneypenny Holdings, LLC, which was the first time the question had been raised in the First Circuit. The Fifth and Sixth Circuits have held that because prejudgment interest …

Conference Of Soviet And American Jurists On The Law Of The Sea And The Protection Of The Marine Environment, Milton Katz, Richard R. Baxter, O. V. Bogdanov, William E. Butler, Thomas M. Franck, Richard Frank, P. P. Gureev, John L. Hargrove, L. A. Ivanaschenko, Y. Kasmin, V. A. Kiselev, B. M. Klimenko, H. G. Knight, O. S. Kolbasov, A. L. Kolodkin, V. M. Koretsky, F. N. Kovalev, V. N. Kudrjavtsev, B. A. Kuvshinnikov, M. I. Lazarev, A. L. Makovsky, Charles W. Maynes, P. A. Moiseev, John N. Moore, A. P. Movchan, T. M. Starzhina, Robert E. Stein, Grigory I. Tunkin, E. T. Usenko, A. F. Vysotsky, A. K. Zhudro

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

Included in the papers for the Conference of Soviet and American Jurists on the Law of the Sea and the Protection of the Marine Environment:

Introduction by Milton Katz and Richard R. Baxter, p. 1

Freedom of Scientific Research in the World Ocean by A.F. Vysotsky, p. 7

The International Law of Scientific Research in the Oceans by Richard R. Baxter, p. 27

Responsibility and Liability for Harm to the Marine Environment by Robert E. Stein, p. 41

Liability for Marine Environment Pollution Damage in Contemporary International Sea Law by A. L. Makovsky, p. 59

Protection of the Marine Environment …

Admiralty - Shipowners’ Limited Liability Act - A Shipowner Cannot Invoke The Act To Limit His Liability For Wreck Removal Expenses Since A Statutory Duty To Remove A Sunken Vessel Prevents Him From Being “Without Privity Or Knowledge,” A Condition Precedent To The Invocation Of The Act, Thomas C. Holcomb

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Admiralty - Torts - In Noncollision Cases Contribution Will Lie Where No Countervailing Considerations Detract From The Maritime Rule Allowing Contribution Between Joint Tortfeasors, Richard H. Siegel, Stephen O. Spinks

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

International Straits: The Right Of Access, R. P. Cundick

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Right, Title And Interest In The Territorial Sea: Federal And State Claims In The United States, Stephen M. Kiser, Dan A. Aldridge Jr.

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Environmental Protection By Coastal States: The Paradigm From Marine Transport Of Petroleum, Joseph C. Sweeny

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: The Guardian: Gutoff On Cook's 'Endeavour', 6-16-2016, The Guardian, Associated Press, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Contracts - Jurisdiction - Absent A Strong Showing Of Unreasonableness Or Undue Influence, Parties’ Contractual Selection Of Forum In International Transactions Will Be Valid And Enforceable, Shelley Himel

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: Strong Finish For Admiralty Team In Sfo 03-07-2016, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

A Crackerjack Of A Sea Yarn: The Triumphs, Tributes And Trials Of Treasure Hunter Tommy Thompson, Taylor Simpson-Wood

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Sea Of Confusion: The Shipowner's Limitation Of Liability Act As An Independent Basis For Admiralty Jurisdiction, Amie L. Medley

Michigan Law Review

The Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 allowed the owner of a vessel to limit his liability in the case of an accident to the value of the vessel and its cargo if he could show he had no knowledge of or participation in the negligent act that resulted in the loss. In 1911, the Supreme Court decided Richardson v. Harmon, a case which was interpreted for several decades to hold that the Limitation Act formed an independent basis for admiralty jurisdiction. In a 1990 case, the Supreme Court stated in a footnote that it would not reach …

Originalism And The Difficulties Of History In Foreign Affairs, Eugene Kontorovich

Faculty Working Papers

This Article spotlights some of the idiosyncratic features of admiralty law at the time of the founding. These features pose challenges for applying the original understanding of the Constitution to contemporary questions of foreign relations. Federal admiralty courts were unusual creatures by Article III standards. They sat as international tribunals applying international and foreign law, freely hearing cases that implicated sensitive questions of foreign policy, and liberally exercising universal jurisdiction over disputes solely between foreigners. However, these powers did not arise out of the basic features of Article III, but rather from a felt need to opt into the preexisting …

Maritime Delimitation In The Black Sea (Romania V. Ukraine), Coalter G. Lathrop

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

The trend of the eminent domain reform and "Kelo plus" initiatives is toward a comprehensive Constitutional property right incorporating the elements of level of review, nature of government action, and extent of compensation. This article contains a draft amendment which reflects these concerns.

Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.

Breaking The Bank: Revisiting Central Bank Of Denver After Enron And Sarbanes-Oxley, Celia Taylor

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Salvage And The Public Interest, Steven F. Friedell

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Admiralty Procedure And Jurisdiction After The 1966 Unification, David W. Robertson

Michigan Law Review

From the nation's beginning, the federal district courts have been vested with jurisdiction in cases "of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction." Like its predecessor statute, section 1333 of the present Judicial Code asserts that the jurisdiction is "exclusive of the courts of the states," but the infamous "saving clause" goes on to negate that exclusivity in the bulk of maritime cases by giving the plaintiff the option of maintaining his action in any other court having jurisdiction over it. In "saving clause" cases--that is, cases that could have been brought in federal court under the admiralty jurisdiction, but which were maintained, …

Admiralty And Maritime Law, Various Editors

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

A View From The Bridge: Some Observations On Amphibious Tort Jurisdiction In Admiralty, Thomas A. Clingan Jr.

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Conflict Of Laws-Law Applicable In Federal Courts-Federal Law Applied To Contractual Relations Of Admiralty Lawyer, Robert E. Thorne S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff attorney was retained by a Spanish seaman to prosecute personal injury claims under the Jones Act and the general maritime law. Defendant shipping company induced the seaman to fire his lawyer and to recover instead under his Spanish employment contract. Plaintiff sued the shipping company in tort for interference with contractual relations. In a federal diversity suit, held, for plaintiff. Federal common law should be applied to determine the validity of the contract and the claim of tortious interference with it. Greenberg v. Panama Transp. Co., 185 F. Supp. 320 (D. Mass. 1960).

Historic Origins Of Admiralty Jurisdiction In England, Lionel H. Laing

Michigan Law Review

The process of the common law courts when resorted to by foreigners appears to have failed entirely to give redress. Arbitration and other treaties were tried without satisfaction. Finally, in 1337, Edward III found himself obliged to pay out of his own pocket for spoils committed upon Flemish, Genoese and Venetian merchants by his own subjects. This was no international gesture, for it was dictated by necessity, since the English monarch, engaged in a struggle with France, wished to retain the aid of his allies. It thus became urgent to suppress piracy, which was the plague of the Channel.

Admiralty-Venue Of Action Brought In State Court Under Jones Act

Michigan Law Review

The plaintiff brought suit in a county court of Pennsylvania to to recover damages for injuries sustained by her while a member of the steamship crew of the defendant. The action was based on the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 which provided: "Jurisdiction in such actions shall be under the court of the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located." Defendant corporation moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction since defendant's principal office was in Baltimore. The motion was granted and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court …