TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Elof Malm v. United States Lines Company

Elof Malm v. United States Lines Co., 378 F.2d 941 (2d Cir. 1967)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 5, 1967
Docket
No. 31199
Citations
378 F.2d 9411967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6114

Opinion

378 F.2d 941

Elof MALM, Appellee, v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 489, Docket 31199.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued May 31, 1967. Decided June 5, 1967.

Daniel J. Dougherty, New York City (Charles N. Fiddler, Kirlin Campbell & Keating, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas E. P. McElligott, Fields, Rosen, McElligott & Auslander, New York City, for appellee.

Before WATERMAN, SMITH and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

We affirm on the basis of Judge Weinfeld's opinion in the District Court, reported at 269 F.Supp. 731 (S.D.N.Y. 1967). 1 1

Since neither party on appeal raised the issue of maintenance and cure, we have not considered that portion of Judge Weinfeld's opinion

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1982: 11983: 11984: 319822026peak 1984 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lusby v. T.G. & Y. Stores, Inc.749 F.2d 1423 (10th Cir. 1984)
  2. James P. Merchant v. Philip Henry Ruhle740 F.2d 86 (1st Cir. 1984)
  3. International Wood Processors v. Power Dry, Inc.593 F. Supp. 710 (D.S.C. 1984)
  4. Brink's Inc. v. City of New York717 F.2d 700 (2d Cir. 1983)
  5. Burgos v. United States Lines, Inc.547 F. Supp. 830 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)

Most recent

  1. Lusby v. T.G. & Y. Stores, Inc.749 F.2d 1423 (10th Cir. 1984)
  2. International Wood Processors v. Power Dry, Inc.593 F. Supp. 710 (D.S.C. 1984)
  3. James P. Merchant v. Philip Henry Ruhle740 F.2d 86 (1st Cir. 1984)
  4. Brink's Inc. v. City of New York717 F.2d 700 (2d Cir. 1983)
  5. Burgos v. United States Lines, Inc.547 F. Supp. 830 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Malm v. United States Lines Co., 269 F. Supp. 731 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) 27

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list