Marshall P. Safir v. Robert J. Blackwell, Maritime Administrator, Maritime Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce
Marshall P. SAFIR, Appellant, v. Robert J. BLACKWELL, Maritime Administrator, Maritime Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce, Et Al., Appellees
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
In this case, which is now here for the third time, see Safir v. Gibson, 417 F.2d 972 (2 Cir. 1969); Safir v. Gibson, 432 F.2d 137 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 850 , 91 S.Ct. 57 , 27 L.Ed.2d 88 (1970), plaintiff Safir moved to require the ship operator defendants to pay into escrow moneys expected to become payable to them in consequence of the sale of certain American flag ships authorized by Public Law 92-296, 86 Stat. 140, which became effective May 17, 1972. The motion was based on plaintiff’s fear that the defendants might not be financially able to respond to a direction for the repayment of operating differential subsidies which may be made by the Maritime Administration Maritime Subsidy Board in the proceeding, Docket No. S. 243, instituted as a result of our first decision. The Assistant Secretary of the Board and of the Administration submitted an affidavit indicating'that the Government entertained no doubt of its ability to recover, by set-off or otherwise, any amounts that might ultimately be found to be repayable. Accepting this *1063 conclusion, the district court denied the requested relief.
The judge's order was well within his discretion; he was not bound to accept plaintiff’s assertions that the recoveries will run vastly beyond the sums recommended by the Chief Hearing Examiner in respect of three of the four ship operator defendants. We share plaintiff’s concern over the time that the Maritime Administration has taken to decide this matter, especially in light of the narrowing of the issues by our 1970 decision. However, we were advised at argument that, at long last, the matter has now been finally submitted, and we expect it to be promptly decided.
Plaintiff complains of a statement by the district judge that he would have no interest in any recovery by the Government. This statement was unnecessary to the decision and we have no occasion either to approve or to disapprove it.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.