green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.6 score
“again, the federalist shows, that the grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts was not intended to be exclusive; and at all events that 'the state courts would be divested of no part of their primitive jurisdiction, further than may relate to an appeal.”
Treatment trajectory · 1901 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1901
1963
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gregoire v. Enterprise Marine Services, LLC
again, the federalist shows, that the grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts was not intended to be exclusive; and at all events that 'the state courts would be divested of no part of their primitive jurisdiction, further than may relate to an appeal.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Coronel v. AK Victory
it is not a remedy in the common-law courts which is saved, but a common-law remedy.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fisk v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
STANDARD OF REVIEW A contract regarding the transportation of a passenger “on the high seas” is a maritime contract, and “is the appropriate subject of admiralty jurisdiction.” The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411 , 71 U.S. 411, 427 , 18 L.Ed. 397, 400-01 (1867).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. F/V BARANOF
Hendry Co. v. Moore, 318 U.S. 133, 134 , 63 S.Ct. 499, 500 , 87 L.Ed. 663, 664 (1943); The Moses Taylor v. Hammons, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411, 430 , 18 L.Ed. 397, 402 (1867).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Metropolitan Dade County v. One (1) Bronze Cannon
Id. at 431; Wright, Miller and Cooper, supra, § 3672.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Samuel H. Sloan and Samuel H. Sloan & Co. v. Securities and Exchange Commission
But it has been established at least since The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411, 428-30 , 18 L.Ed. 397, 401-402 (1867), that Congress has the power to make federal jurisdiction exclusive.
cited
Cited "see"
Cassidy v. Murray
See The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. 411, 431 , 4 Wall. 411 , 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866).
discussed
Cited "see"
Oltman v. Holland America Line USA, Inc.
Article III, section 2 of the United States Constitution extends federal judicial power "to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." A case involving a forum selection clause in a passenger cruise line ticket contract is "a case in admiralty, and federal law governs the enforceability of the forum-selection clause." Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 590 , 111 S.Ct. 1522 , 113 L.Ed.2d 622 (1991); see The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411, 427 , 18 L.Ed. 397 (1867); Effron v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc., 67 F.3d 7 (2d Cir.1995); Hodes v. S.N.C.
cited
Cited "see"
Oltman v. Holland America Line USA, Inc.
Ed. 2d 622 (1991); see The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411, 427 , 18 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Carlisle v. Carnival Corp.
See The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411, 427 , 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866); Wallis v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 306 F.3d 827, 834 (9th Cir. 2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
See The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411, 429-30 , 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866) (“The Judiciary Act of 1789 ... recognizes and is framed upon the theory that in all cases to which the judicial power of the *539 United States extends, Congress may rightfully vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal courts ...
discussed
Cited "see"
Ehorn v. Abandoned Shipwreck Known as the Rosinco, Her Tackle, Appurtenances, Furnishings, & Cargo
See The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411, 427 , 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866) (describing in rem jurisdiction and stating that ‘[i]t is this dominion of the suit in admiralty over the vessel or thing itself which gives to the title made under its decrees validity against all the world’).” R.M.S.
discussed
Cited "see"
Walker v. Carnival Cruise Lines
See The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411 , 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866); Kendall v. American Hawaii Cruises, 704 F.Supp. 1010, 1018 (D.Haw.1989). 3 .This Court implicitly granted plaintiffs leave to file a motion for reconsideration through its sua sponte recasting of plaintiffs’ expedited motion.
cited
Cited "see"
Walker v. Carnival Cruise Lines
See The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411 , 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866); Kendall v. American Hawaii Cruises, 704 F.Supp. 1010, 1018 (D.Hawai’i 1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
No. 98-1934
See The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411, 427 , 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866) (describing in rem jurisdiction and stating that "[i]t is this dominion of the suit in admiralty over the vessel or thing itself which gives to the title made under its decrees validity against all the world"); see also Darlak v. Columbus-America Discovery Group, Inc., 59 F.3d 20 (4th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. Haver
See The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411, 427 , 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866) (describing in rem jurisdiction and stating that “[i]t is this dominion of the suit in admiralty over the vessel or thing itself which gives to the title made under its decrees validity against all the world”); see also Darlak v. Columbus-America Discovery Group, Inc., 59 F.3d 20 (4th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Town of Stratford v. City of Bridgeport
See remarks of Mr. Justice Field, in The Moses Taylor . . . [ 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411, 429 , 18 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Doucette v. Vincent
See The Moses Taylor, 1866, 4 Wall. 411 , 18 L.Ed. 397 ; Rounds v. Cloverport Foundry & Machine Co., 1915, 237 U.S. 303 , 35 S.Ct. 596 , 59 L.Ed. 966 .
cited
Cited "see"
Zikos v. Oregon R. & Navigation Co.
See remarks of Mr. Justice Field, in The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 429 [ 18 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Maziar v. Department of Corrections
Ed. 921 (1900); see also The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411, 431 , 18 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Stires v. Carnival Corp.
Milanovich v. Costa Crociere, S.p.A., 954 F.2d 763, 766 (D.C.Cir.1992); see also The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall) 411, 427, 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Licensed Practical Nurses, Technicians and Health Care Workers of New York, Inc. v. Ulysses Cruises, Inc.
And, again, whether the service was to be substantially performed upon the sea, or tide-waters, although it had commenced and had terminated beyond the reach of the tide; if it was, then jurisdiction has always been maintained.’ ” Archawski v. Hanioti, 850 U.S. 532 , 534 n. 2, 76 S.Ct. 617 , 100 L.Ed. 676 (1956) (quoting New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v. Merchants’ Bank, 47 U.S. (6 How.) 344, 392 , 12 L.Ed. 465 (1848)); see also The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. 411 , 4 Wall. 411 , 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866) (contract for ocean passage is a maritime contract governed by federal law).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dluhos v. Floating and Abandoned Vessel, Known as New York
See id.; see also The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411, 427 , 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866) (suggesting that an action seeking to secure title "against all the world" must necessarily be brought in rem ); cf. Madruga v. Superior Court of California, 346 U.S. 556, 561 , 74 S.Ct. 298 , 98 L.Ed. 290 (1954) (holding that an admiralty action was permissible in diversity where "it does not affect the interests of others in the world at large, as it would if this were a proceeding in rem to enforce a lien").
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dluhos v. Floating & Abandoned Vessel, Known as \New York\""
See id.; see also The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411, 427 , 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866) (suggesting that an action seeking to secure title “against all the world” must necessarily be brought in rem); cf. Madruga v. Superior Court of California, 346 U.S. 556, 561 , 74 S.Ct. 298 , 98 L.Ed. 290 (1954) (holding that an admiralty action was permissible in diversity where “it does not affect the interests of others in the world at large, as it would if this were a proceeding in rem to enforce a lien”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Schaff v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc.
See Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 590 , 111 S.Ct. 1522, 1525 , 113 L.Ed.2d 622 (1991); see also The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411 , 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Thomas v. Costa Cruise Lines N.V.
III We begin our analysis by noting that “[a] contract for the transportation of passengers is a maritime contract within admiralty jurisdiction.” Archawski v. Hanioti, 350 U.S. 532, 533 , 76 S.Ct. 617, 619 , 100 L.Ed. 676 (1956); see also The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411 , 18 L.Ed. 397 (1867).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Thorsteinsson v. M/V Drangur
This is necessarily notice to all those who have any interest in the thing, and is reasonable because it is necessary, and because it is part of common prudence for all those who have any interest in it, to guard that interest by persons who are in a situation to protect it. (emphasis added); see also The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411, 427 , 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866) (seizure of vessel gives admiralty decrees validity against all the world).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Thorsteinsson v. Drangur
This is necessarily notice to all those who have any interest in the thing, and is reasonable because it is necessary, and because it is part of common prudence for all those who have any interest in it, to guard that interest by persons who are in a situation to protect it. 26 (emphasis added); see also The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411, 427 , 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866) (seizure of vessel gives admiralty decrees validity against all the world).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Quimby
v.
Quimby
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 18, 1867.
Mr. Justice NELSON
delivered the opinion of the court.
The case falls within the construction of the treaty in the case of the United States v. Hathaway.
The article, we think, is chargeable with a duty of twenty per centum ad valorem, under the twenty-fourth section of the act of March 2d, 1861, which imposes this duty “ on all articles manufactured, in whole or in part,” not otherwise provided for.
The court answer the question, in the certificate of division of opinion,
In the aeeiRMAtive.