William H. Bloch, & Wife, Audrey H. Bloch v. United States, 386 F.2d 839 (5th Cir. 1968). · Go Syfert
William H. Bloch, & Wife, Audrey H. Bloch v. United States, 386 F.2d 839 (5th Cir. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
41 citation events across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Colgate Palmolive Company v. S/s Dart Canada, Her Engines, Boilers, Tackle, Etc., Dart Containerline Ltd., Global Terminal & Container Services, Inc., Lansdell Protective Agency, Inc., Global Terminal & Container Services, Inc., Lansdell Protective Agency, Inc., Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Third-Party (ca2, 1983-12-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Colgate Palmolive Company v. S/s Dart Canada, Her Engines, Boilers, Tackle, Etc., Dart Containerline Ltd., Global Terminal & Container Services, Inc., Lansdell Protective Agency, Inc., Global Terminal & Container Services, Inc., Lansdell Protective Agency, Inc., Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Third-Party
2d Cir. · 1983 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, Carle & Montanari, Inc. v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, 275 F.Supp. 76 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd mem. 386 F.2d 839 (2d Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1013 , 88 S.Ct. 1263 , 20 L.Ed.2d 162 (1968). 7 Having said that nothing in COGSA or its legislative history precludes parties from agreeing to extend its coverage to situations other than those where it would normally apply, it does not follow that any such resulting contractual provision is necessarily valid.
discussed Cited "see" Colgate Palmolive Co. v. S/S Dart Canada
2d Cir. · 1983 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, Carle & Montanari, Inc. v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, 275 F.Supp. 76 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d mem. 386 F.2d 839 (2d Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1013 , 88 S.Ct. 1263 , 20 L.Ed.2d 162 (1968).
discussed Cited "see" Toyomenka, Inc. v. S. S. Tosaharu Maru
S.D.N.Y. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carle & Montanari, Inc. v. American Export Inbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 275 F.Supp. 76 (S.D.N.Y.) aff’d, 386 F.2d 839 (2d Cir. 1967), cert denied, 390 U.S. 1013 , 88 S.Ct. 1263 , 20 L.Ed.2d 162 (1969).
discussed Cited "see" Royal Typewriter Co., Div. of Litton Bs v. M/V Kulmerland
S.D.N.Y. · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carle & Montanari, Inc. v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, 275 F.Supp. 76 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d 386 F.2d 839 (2d Cir., 1967), cert. den. 390 Ü.S. 1013, 88 S.Ct. 1263 , 20 L.Ed.2d 162 (1968) ; Bernard Screen Printing Corp. v. Meyer Line, etc., 328 F.Supp. 288 (S.D.N.Y., 1971), aff’d 464 F.2d 934 (2d Cir., 1972). 7 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rupp v. International Terminal Operating Co.
Ohio Ct. App. · 1973 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Carle & Montanari, Inc. v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 275 F.Supp. 76 (S.D.N.Y.1967), aff’d, 386 F.2d 839 (2 Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1013 (1968) (stevedore entitled to benefit of limitation where clause included “all agents and all stevedores and other independent contractors whatsoever”) . .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William H. BLOCH, and Wife, Audrey H. Bloch, Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
24774_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan 23, 1968.
386 F.2d 839
William H. Bloch, Corpus Christi, Tex., for appellant., Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Crombie J. D. Garrett, Martin T. Goldblum, Melva M. Graney, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Morton L. Susman, U. S. Atty., James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., Meyer Rothwacks, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Jones, Wisdom, Thornberry.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The facts out of which this controversy arises and the reasons assigned by the district court for its decision are set forth in its opinion. Bloch v. United States, 261 F.Supp. 597. While finding it unnecessary to adopt the opinion of the district court, it is the conclusion of this Court that the decision of the district court is correct. Its judgment is

Affirmed.