Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U.S. 479 (1923). · Go Syfert
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U.S. 479 (1923). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
161 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 40 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mizenko v. Electric Motor & Contracting Co. (va, 1992-06-05) · Strongest negative: Fcci Fund (Feisco) v. Cayce's Excavation (fladistctapp, 1998-10-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1923 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1923 1974 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Fcci Fund (Feisco) v. Cayce's Excavation (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U.S. 479 , 43 S.Ct. 418 , 67 L.Ed. 756 (1923) (holding widow of worker killed on board helping repair a scow moored in navigable waters could not recover).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mizenko v. Electric Motor & Contracting Co.
Va. · 1992 · confidence medium
Baizley Iron Works v. Span, 281 U.S. 222, 232 (1930); Messel v. Foundation Co., 274 U.S. 427, 432 (1927); Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Dahl, 266 U.S. 449, 457 (1925); Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U.S. 479, 480-81 (1923).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland
SCOTUS · 1972 · confidence medium
See also The Raithmoor, 241 U. S. 166, 176-177 (1916); Chelentis v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 247 U. S. 372, 382 (1918); Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U. S. 479, 481 (1923); Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Dahl, 266 U. S. 449, 457 (1925); London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 279 U. S. 109, 123 (1929).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Comar v. Department of Labor & Industries
Wash. · 1936 · confidence medium
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U. S. 479, 480, 481 ; Gonsalves v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., 266 U. S. 171, 172 ; Robins Dry Dock Co. v. Dahl, 266 U. S. 449, 457 ; Messel v. Foundation Co., 274 U. S. 427, 434 ; Northern Coal & Dock Co. v. Strand, 278 U. S. 142, 144 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John Baizley Iron Works v. Span (2×)
SCOTUS · 1930 · confidence medium
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U.S. 479, 480, 481 ; Gonsalves v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., 266 U.S. 171, 172 ; Robins Dry Dock Co. v. Dahl, 266 U.S. 449, 457 ; Messel v. Foundation Co., 274 U.S. 427, 434 ; Northern Coal & Dock Co. v. Strand, 278 U.S. 142, 144 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) The Atna
W.D. Wash. · 1924 · confidence medium
Co. v. Kierejewski, etc., 261 U. S. 479 , 43 Sup. Ct. 418, 67 L.
discussed Cited "see" Calbeck v. Travelers Insurance Co. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
SCOTUS · 1962 · signal: see · confidence high
See Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U. S. 479 ; Gonsalves v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., 266 U. S. 171 ; Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Dahl, 266 U. S. 449 .
cited Cited "see" Span v. John Baizley Iron Works
Pa. · 1928 · signal: see · confidence high
See Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U. S. 479, 480-81 .
cited Cited "see" Eclipse Mill Co. v. Department of Labor & Industries
Wash. · 1926 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U. S. 479 ; Millers’ Indemnity Underwriters v. Brand, 270 U. S. 59 , 46 Sup. Ct. 194.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Garanti Finansal Kiralama A.S. v. Aqua Marine and Trading Inc. (2×)
2d Cir. · 2012 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U.S. 479, 480, 43 S.Ct. 418 , 67 L.Ed. 756 (1923) (discussing admiralty jurisdiction over "contract matters”); Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde, 257 U.S. 469, 476 , 42 S.Ct. 157 , 66 L.Ed. 321 (1922) (same); see also DeLovio, 7 F.Cas. at 441-43 (discussing jurisdiction over "maritime contracts and concerns,” over "all maritime questions,” and over "all those causes, which originally and inherently belonged to the admiralty” (emphases added)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Tompkins v. Port of New York Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
The submissions also establish that the tort was consummated " 'on the high seas, or on waters within the ebb and flow of the tide’ ” (Executive Jet Aviation v City of Cleveland, supra, at 253, quoted in Torres v City of New York, supra, at 101; see also, Great Lakes Co. v Kierejewski, 261 US 479 [plaintiff’s decedent located on float alongside scow]; Gonsalves v Morse Dry Dock Co., 266 US 171 [plaintiff located on floating dock off 27th Street, Brooklyn]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Torres v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
This additional aspect of the "nexus” test is satisfied here, since the United States Supreme Court has expressly stated that accidents which occur during ship repair bear a "direct relation to navigation and commerce” (Robins Dry Dock Co. v Dahl, 266 US 449, 457 ; see also, Great Lakes Co. v Kierejewski, 261 US 479, 480-481 , supra [holding that right of recovery possessed by worker injured while repairing a scow was a matter which had "direct relation to navigation or commerce”]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hess v. United States (2×)
SCOTUS · 1960 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Great Lakes Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U. S. 479 ; Spencer Kellogg Co. v. Hicks, 285 U. S. 502, 512-513 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company
v.
Kierejewski, Administratrix of Kierejewski
633.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 9, 1923.
261 U.S. 479
1923 U.S. LEXIS 2582
Mr. George Clinton, Jr., with whom Mr. Ulysses S. Thomas was on the briefs, for plaintiff in error.., Mr. Irving W. Cole for defendant in error.
McReynolds.
Cited by 92 opinions  |  Published
Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The sole question propounded upon this direct writ of error is whether the District Court rightly held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the libel by which defendant in error sought to recover damages for the death of her husband. 280 Fed. 125.

Plaintiff in error, a corporation engaged in dredging, pile driving, etc,, maintains a yard at Buffalo, New York, and also keeps there scows and tugs. Leo Kierejewski, a master boiler maker, was employed by it to perform services as called upon. Acting under this employment, he began to make repairs upon a scow moored in the navigable waters of Buffalo River. He stood upon a scaffold resting upon a float alongside. One of the Company’s tugs came near, negligently agitated the water, swamped the float and precipitated him into the stream where he drowned.

While performing maritime service to a completed vessel afloat, he came to his death upon navigable waters as the result of a tort there committed. The rules of the maritime law supplemented by the local death statute applied and fixed the rights and liabilities of the parties. Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia, 257 U. S. 233.

. The general doctrine that in contr'act matters admiralty jurisdiction depends upon the nature of the transaction and in tort matters upon the locality, has been so frequently asserted by this court that it must now be treated as settled.” Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde, 257 U. S. 469, 476.

In the cause last cited neither Rohde’s general employment nor his activities had any direct relation to naviga[*481] tion or commerce — the matter was purely local — and we were of opinion that application of the state statute, as between the parties, would not work material prejudice to any characteristic feature of the general maritime law or interfere with its proper harmony or uniformity.

Here the Circumstances are very different. Not only was the tort committed and effective on navigable waters, but the rights and liabilities of the parties are matters which have direct relation to navigation and commerce. Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205; Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U. S. 255; State Industrial Commission of New York v. Nordenholt Corporation, 259 U. S. 263.

Affirmed.