| Description |
1 online resource (234 pages) |
| Contents |
Cover; Half Title; Title Page; Copyright Page; Contents; Foreword; Applying Jus Gentium to the Salvage of the R.M.S. Titanic in International Waters; Admiralty's Greatest Hits; Romero v. International Terminal Operating Company, 358 U.S. 354 (1959); FACTS, POSTURE, OUTCOME: AN OVERVIEW; AN ANALYSIS-THE COURT'S OPINION; AN ANALYSIS: THE DISSENT; NOTES; Panama Railroad Co. v. Johnson; I. INTRODUCTION; II. BACKGROUND; III. THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE; IV. THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION; V. PANAMA RAILROAD AS ONE OF ADMIRALTY'S GREATEST HITS |
|
VI. WILL PANAMA RAILROAD CONTINUE TO BE ONE OF ADMIRALTY'S GREATEST HITS?VII. CONCLUSION; NOTES; McDermott v. AmClyde: The Quiet Achiever; I. WHAT MAKES A GREATEST HIT: IMPACT; II. JOINT & SEVERAL LIABILITY: A PRIMER; III. THE ADMIRALTY RULE; IV. UN- OR NOT FULLY ANSWERED QUESTIONS; V. CONCLUSION; NOTES; The New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. v. Merchants' Bank of Boston, 47 U.S. (6 How.) 344 (1848); I. INTRODUCTION; II. THE COMMERCIAL BACKGROUND; A. The Steamboat Industry; B. Long Island Sound; III. FACTS OF THE CASUALTY; IV. HISTORY OF THE CASE; A. The Pleadings; B. Lower Court Decisions |
|
C. Admiralty Jurisprudence in 1848V. SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS; A. Hearings; B. The Briefs and Arguments; VI. OPINION OF THE COURT; VII. CONCLUSION; NOTES; Marine Pollution and the "Polluter Pays" Principle: Should the Polluter also Pay Punitive Damages?; INTRODUCTION; Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker and the Clean Water Act; South Port Marine and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990; Punitive Damages and State Law; Deepwater Horizon; Punitive Damages and Insurance; NOTES; Celebrating Women on the High Seas-In Admiralty Law and Otherwise; I. WOMEN ON THE HIGH SEAS; A. Mermaids, Ships, and Storms |
|
B. Pirates and SailorsII. WOMEN IN ADMIRALTY LAW; A. Admiralty Lawyers; B. Origins of Maritime Law; III. JUSTICE O'CONNOR AND ADMIRALTY LAW; A. Deference to Congress; B. Recognition of the Role of States and State Courts; CONCLUSION; NOTES; Wish List: Issues We Wish The US Supreme Court Would Decide; To Port or Starboard? Why the Supreme Court Might Provide Direction to Those Navigating Choice-of-Law Questions in Maritime-Lien Cases; I.A TANGLED WEB-THE SPLIT IN THE CIRCUITS; A. The Historical Context in Which the Issue Arises; B. The Minority View: Rainbow Line, Inc. v. M/V TEQUILA |
|
C. The Majority View: QUEEN OF LEMAN, Trans-Tec, Triton1. Liverpool & London S.S. Protection & Indem. Ass'n v. QUEEN OF LEMAN MV; 2. Trans-Tec Asia v. M/V HARMONY CONTAINER; 3. Triton Marine Fuels Ltd. v. M/V PACIFIC CHUKOTKA; D. Comparing the Majority and Minority Views; II. WORLD FUEL SERVICES TRADING, DMCC V. HEBEI PRINCE SHIPPING CO.; III. WHY THE SUPREME COURT MIGHT DECIDE TO RESOLVE THE CIRCUIT SPLIT; A. Uniformity; B. Predictability; C. Comity; IV. CONCLUSION; NOTES |
| Notes |
What I Wish the Supreme Court Would Decide: Review by a US Court of a Foreign Arbitration Award Issued in a Dispute to which COGSA Applies-What Standard Applies? |
|
Print version record |
| Form |
Electronic book
|
| ISBN |
9781351543675 |
|
1351543679 |
|
