Red Star Towing Transp. v. Cargo Ship Ming Giant

6 Citing cases

  1. Matthews v. U.S.

    150 F. Supp. 2d 406 (E.D.N.Y. 2001)   Cited 4 times

    In this case, KMS can make no showing that it is entitled to any contribution from Independent Testing. To the extent that KMS argues that Anthony Matthews' own negligence should be imputed to his employer, Independent Testing, and that KMS should therefore be allowed to seek contribution from Independent Testing, such claim fails under Red Star Towing Transp. Co., Inc. v. Cargo Ship "Ming Giant", 563 F. Supp. 224, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (Leval, J.), which this Court finds persuasive. In Red Star, plaintiff Lorraine Mowen brought an action for her husband's death, caused by injuries allegedly resulting from the negligence of defendants Yangming Marine Transport Corporation ("Yangming") and her husband's employer, Red Star Towing Transportation Company ("Red Star").

  2. In re Friedman

    51 F.3d 20 (2d Cir. 1995)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that a federal court may constitutionally impose reciprocal attorney discipline based on an underlying state disciplinary proceeding conducted under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard

    Following a hearing at which he heard testimony, Judge Leval published an opinion in which he found that respondent had willfully tampered with the evidence. See Red Star Towing Transp. Co. v. "Ming Giant", 552 F. Supp. 367, 382-85 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), modified on other grounds, 563 F. Supp. 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). Respondent was subsequently charged with four counts of professional misconduct by a panel appointed by the Committee on Grievances of the Board of Judges of the Southern District of New York to investigate the matter.

  3. Stissi v. Interstate and Ocean Transport

    765 F.2d 370 (2d Cir. 1985)   Cited 39 times

    Finally, the court did not err in refusing to impute Stissi's contributory negligence to Furey in determining the amount of Furey's contribution toward Stissi's damages. See Red Star Towing Transportation Company v. Cargo Ship "Ming Giant", 563 F.Supp. 224, 226 (S.D. N.Y. 1983); Shiver v. Burnside Terminal Company, 392 F.Supp. 1078, 1079 (E.D.La. 1975). We affirm that portion of the judgment which fixed the amount of plaintiffs' damages but vacate that part which apportioned fault between the parties, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

  4. Hillier v. Southern Towing Co.

    740 F.2d 583 (7th Cir. 1984)   Cited 24 times

    These courts have discounted the present value for future losses to the date of trial and awarded prejudgment interest only for those losses accruing prior to judgment. Petition of the City of New York, 332 F.2d at 1008-9; Red Star Towing Transportation Co., Inc. v. Cargo Ship " Ming Giant", 563 F. Supp. 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1983); Hamilton v. Canal Barge Company, Inc., 395 F. Supp. 978 (E.D.La. 1975); Petition of Marina Mercante Nicaraguense, S.A., 248 F. Supp. 15 (S.D.N.Y. 1965), modified on other grounds, 364 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1005, 87 S.Ct. 710, 17 L.Ed.2d 544 (1967). Cf.

  5. U.S. v. Somerstein

    971 F. Supp. 736 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Finally on this subject, the Court makes one additional finding. In support of his argument regarding prosecutorial misconduct, counsel for Stuart Somerstein relies on then District Judge Leval's decision in Red Star Towing v. "Ming Giant", 552 F. Supp. 367 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), modified on other grounds, 563 F. Supp. 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). In Red Star Towing, plaintiff's counsel permitted an exhibit to go to the jury despite the Court's instructions to the contrary.

  6. Ford Motor Co. v. Transport Indem. Co.

    45 B.R. 843 (E.D. Mich. 1984)   Cited 7 times

    The parties are in disagreement over whether Ford is entitled to interest on the judgment in this case from the date of the filing of its complaint in October of 1980. The availability of prejudgment interest is a question of the substantive law of damages, rather than a procedural question, see Red Star Towing Transport, Inc. v. Cargo Ship Ming Giant, 563 F. Supp. 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). Because liability in this case arises from the I.C.C. endorsement, federal law governs the availability of such interest in this case.