From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Bethlehem Steel Co.

U.S.
Jan 15, 1968
389 U.S. 575 (1968)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that a dry dock constituted a vessel when its attachments to the land had been severed and it was moving over navigable waters under tow and equipped with navigation lights, but noting that a dry dock in service, permanently moored to the land, "has most of the attributes of such an extension of the land as a wharf or a dock" and has been held not to be a vessel

Summary of this case from Commercial Union Ins. v. Detyens Shipyard
See 4 Summaries

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.

No. 130.

Decided January 15, 1968.

Certiorari granted; 374 F.2d 656, judgments vacated and remanded.

Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Sanders, Alan S. Rosenthal and Martin Jacobs for the United States.

David R. Owen for Bethlehem Steel Co. and William A. Grimes for Moran Towing Transportation Co., Inc., respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgments of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit are vacated and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings in light of this Court's decision in Wyandotte Transportation Co. v. United States, ante, p. 191.

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Summaries of

United States v. Bethlehem Steel Co.

U.S.
Jan 15, 1968
389 U.S. 575 (1968)

holding that a dry dock constituted a vessel when its attachments to the land had been severed and it was moving over navigable waters under tow and equipped with navigation lights, but noting that a dry dock in service, permanently moored to the land, "has most of the attributes of such an extension of the land as a wharf or a dock" and has been held not to be a vessel

Summary of this case from Commercial Union Ins. v. Detyens Shipyard

floating drydocks in transit across navigable waters were vessels within admiralty jurisdiction under the Wreck Act

Summary of this case from Bender Shipbuilding Repair, v. Brasileiro

In United States v. Bethlehem Steel Co. et al., 389 U.S. 575, 88 S.Ct. 689, 19 L.Ed.2d 775, the Supreme Court vacated our decision and remanded the case to us for further consideration in the light of Wyandotte Transportation Co. v. United States, 389 U.S. 191, 88 S.Ct. 379, 19 L.Ed.2d 407. After supplemental briefing and argument, we reach the conclusion that further proceedings in the District Court are necessary, and the case will be remanded for that purpose.

Summary of this case from United States v. Moran Towing Transp. Co.

floating drydock under tow in navigable waters held to be a vessel

Summary of this case from Berry v. American Commercial Barge Lines
Case details for

United States v. Bethlehem Steel Co.

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES v . BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jan 15, 1968

Citations

389 U.S. 575 (1968)

Citing Cases

Commercial Union Ins. v. Detyens Shipyard

"When a floating drydock is moored and in use as a drydock, courts have consistently found that the drydock…

U.S. v. Chesapeake Delaware Shipyard, Inc.

In re Eastern Transportation Co., 102 F. Supp. 913, 916 (D.C.Md. 1952), aff'd sub nom. Ottenheimer v.…

9 Citing Cases