Citing references
Opinions citing Cummiskey v. Chandris, S.A., 895 F.2d 107 (2d Cir. 1990)
14 citing cases
-
838 N.E.2d 80 Appellate Court of IllinoisOctober 20, 2005
Chandris, S.A., 895 F.2d 107 (2d Cir.1990), 895 F.2d 107 , 1990 A.M.C. 1452 (1990) (and cases cited therein).
-
Supreme Court of DelawareJune 28, 2017
F.2d 107 (2d Cir. 1990). 41 App. to Opening Br. at A398 (Tr. 18:15). 42 Id.
-
772 F.3d 1225 Eleventh CircuitNovember 10, 2014
Chandris, S.A, 895 F.2d 107, 108 (2d Cir.1990) (per curiam) (citing Barbetta and “declin[ing] the invitation to break with maritime precedent” “on the facts before [the court]”). 10 In effect, these cases stand for the sweeping proposition that no conceivable
-
916 F. Supp. 300 S.D. New YorkFebruary 22, 1996
Chandris, S.A., 895 F.2d 107, 108 (2d Cir.1990); Maimed v. Cunard Line Limited, 1995 WL 505915 (S.D.N.Y.1995); see also Johnson v. Commodore Cruise Lines, Ltd., 897 F.Supp. 740, 745 (S.D.N.Y.1995). 4 .
-
953 So. 2d 461 Supreme Court of FloridaFebruary 15, 2007
Chandris, S.A., 895 F.2d 107, 108 (2d Cir.1990); Barbetta, 848 F.2d at 1367 ; The Korea Maru, 254 F. 397, 399 (9th Cir.1918); Nanz v. Costa Cruises, Inc., 1991 A.M.C. 48 , 49 (S.D.Fla.1990), aff'd, 932 F.2d 977 (11th Cir.1991); Gillmor v.
-
864 So. 2d 1 District Court of Appeal of FloridaFebruary 4, 2004
Chandris, 895 F.2d 107 (2d Cir.1990); Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, 145 F.Supp.2d 1337 (S.D.Fla.2001); Mascolo v. Costa Crociere, 726 F.Supp. 1285 (S.D.Fla.1989).
-
515 F. Supp. 2d 1278 S.D. FloridaAugust 6, 2007
Chandris, S.A., 895 F.2d 107, 108 (2d Cir.1990); The Korea Maru, 254 F. 397 (9th Cir.1918); The Great Northern, 251 F. 826 (9th Cir.1918); Mas colo v. Costa Crociere, S.p.A., 726 F.Supp. 1285, 1286 (S.D.Fla.1989).
-
531 S.E.2d 340 West Virginia Supreme CourtMay 23, 2000
Chandris, S.A., 719 F.Supp. 1183, 1187-88 (S.D.N.Y.1989) aff'd, 895 F.2d 107 (2d Cir.1990). Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has not yet resolved this conflict among the federal courts.
-
64 F. Supp. 2d 259 S.D. New YorkAugust 26, 1999
Chandris, S.A., 719 F.Supp. 1183, 1186 (S.D.N.Y.1989), aff'd, 895 F.2d 107 (2d Cir.1990). The standard of care used in maritime actions such as this is “reasonable care under the circumstances.” See Rainey v.
-
935 F. Supp. 482 S.D. New YorkAugust 29, 1996
Chandris, S.A, 719 F.Supp. 1183, 1186 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (granting summary judgment in negligence case where plaintiff failed to offer “ ‘ “significant probative evidence” ’ ” of elements of claim) (citations omitted), aff'd, 895 F.2d 107 (2d Cir.1990); cf.
-
897 F. Supp. 740 S.D. New YorkJuly 25, 1995
(2d Cir.1980) 895 F.2d 107, 107-08 ; Amdur v. Zim Israel Nav. Co. (S.D.N.Y.1969) 310 F.Supp. 1033, 1042 . Neither of these doctrines has any application here.
-
789 F. Supp. 488 D. Puerto RicoMarch 30, 1992
Chandris, S.A., 895 F.2d 107 (2nd Cir.1990) (declining to break precedent that the negligence of a shipboard doctor in treating passengers is not to be imputed to the ship’s owner or operator.)
-
796 F. Supp. 704 E.D. New YorkJune 15, 1992
Chandris, S.A., 719 F.Supp. 1183, 1188-89 (S.D.N.Y.1989), aff'd, 895 F.2d 107 (2d Cir.1990).
-
48 F.3d 1229 Ninth CircuitMarch 8, 1995
Chandris, S.A., 719 F.Supp. 1183, 1187-88 (S.D.N.Y.1989), aff'd, 895 F.2d 107 (2d Cir.1990). But see United States v.