green
Positive treatment
17.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Miller v. Phillips Petroleum Co. Norway
See Koke, 730 F.2d at 218; Needham v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 10th Cir., 719 F.2d 1481, 1483 (1983); but see Cruz v. Maritime Co., 2d Cir., 702 F.2d 47, 48 (1983). (“[WJhen the Jones Act is applicable ... the District Court must exercise its power to adjudicate, absent some exceptional circumstances such as ... the equitable principle of forum non conve-niens.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michelle Trotter v. 7R Holdings LLC
Co. of Phil., 702 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1983) (“To summarize, when the Jones Act is applicable!;,] federal law is involved and the district court must exercise its power to adjudicate, absent’ some exceptional circumstances such as the application of the abstention doctrine-or, as here, the equitable principle of forum non conveniens.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chirag v. MT Marida Marguerite Schiffahrts
(2×)
But this court has held in binding precedent that “maritime choice of law principles are not involved in a forum non conveniens analysis.” Cruz v. Maritime Co. of Philippines, 702 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1983) (per curiam). 3 Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying jurisdictional discovery.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Chirag v. MT Marida Marguerite Schiffahrts
Cruz v. Maritime Co. of Philippines, 702 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc.
See, e.g., Capital Currency Exch. v. National Westminster Bank PLC, *554 155 F.3d 603 , 608-09 (2d Cir.1998) (forum non conveniens applies to Sherman Act claims despite special federal venue provision); TransUnion Corp. v. Pepsico, Inc., 811 F.2d 127, 129-30 (2d Cir.1987) (same, for RICO claims); Cruz v. Maritime Co. of Philippines, 702 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1983) (same, for Jones Act claims); Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 431 (9th Cir.1977) (same, for Lanham Act claims); see generally Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 507 , 67 S.Ct. 839 (forum non conveniens available "even whe…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Capital Currency Exchange, N.V. v. National Westminster Bank PLC
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ltd., 994 F.2d 996, 1002 (2d Cir.1993) (“United States courts have an interest in enforcing United States securities laws, [but] this alone does not prohibit them from dismissing a securities action on the ground of forum non conveniens”); Cruz, 702 F.2d at 48 (applicability of federal statute does not affect forum non conveniens analysis).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Capital Currency Exchange, N.V. v. National Westminster Bank Plc
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ltd., 994 F.2d 996, 1002 (2d Cir.1993) ("United States courts have an interest in enforcing United States securities laws, [but] this alone does not prohibit them from dismissing a securities action on the ground of forum non conveniens"); Cruz, 702 F.2d at 48 (applicability of federal statute does not affect forum non conveniens analysis).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ioannides v. Marika Maritime Corp.
Cruz v. Maritime Co. of Philippines, 702 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1983); 5 Alcoa S.S.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Penny v. United Fruit Co.
With respect to choice of law, the Second Circuit has stated that "maritime choice of law principles are not involved in a forum non conveniens analysis....” Cruz v. Maritime Co., 702 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Petroquimica de Venezuela, S.A. v. M/T Trade Resolve
“We must guard against an excessive reluctance to undertake the task of deciding foreign law, a chore federal courts must often perform,” Manu Int’l, S.A. v. Avon Products, Inc., 641 F.2d 62, 67-68 (2d Cir.1981); Cruz v. Maritime Company of the Philippines, 702 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reginald H. Howe v. Goldcorp Investments, Ltd.
See Transunion Corp. v. Pepsi-Co, Inc., 811 F.2d at 130 {forum non conve-niens applicable in RICO cases notwith *950 standing special venue provision); In re Aircrash Disaster Near New Orleans, 821 F.2d 1147, 1163-64 (5th Cir.1987) (forum non conveniens available under Jones Act notwithstanding special venue provision); Cruz v. Maritime Co. of Philippines, 702 F.2d 47, 47-48 (2d Cir.1983) (same); accord Gazis v. John S. Latsis, Inc., 729 F.Supp. 979, 987-88 (S.D.N.Y.1990); Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 431 (9th Cir.1977) (forum non conve-niens applicable to Lanham…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Damigos v. Flanders Compania Naviera, SA-Panama
Cruz v. Maritime Co., 702 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1983); accord In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, 821 F.2d 1147 , 1163 n. 25 (5th Cir.1987) (en banc) (agreeing with Cruz), vacated on other grounds, — U.S. -, 109 S. Ct.1928, 104 L.Ed.2d 400 (1989); but see Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 832 F.2d 1477, 1486 (9th Cir.1987) (forum non con-veniens doctrine inapplicable where plaintiff states a claim under the Jones Act), *109 cert. denied, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 2819 , 100 L.Ed.2d 921 (1988); Needham v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 719 F.2d 1481, 1483 (10th Cir.1983) (if United States law is applicable…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Zipfel v. Halliburton Co.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Cruz v. Maritime Co. of Philippines, 702 F.2d 47, 48 (2nd Cir.1983) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Zipfel v. Halliburton Co.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Cruz v. Maritime Co. of Philippines, 702 F.2d 47, 48 (2nd Cir.1983) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Transunion Corporation and Union Industries, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc.
Cruz v. Maritime Company of Philippines, 702 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1983) (per curiam); see also Koster v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 330 U.S. 518 , 522 n. 2 & 531-32, 67 S.Ct. 828 , 830 n. 2 & 835, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947) (upholding dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds of a derivative suit filed under 28 U.S.C. § 112 (recodified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 1401 (1982))); Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 431 (9th Cir.1977) (suggesting a Lanham Act infringement claim might be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds, thought the Act contains a special venue provi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Frederick F. Petersen, Deceased, and Mary Jane Petersen, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Frederick F. Petersen, Cross-Appellants v. The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, Cross-Appellee, and Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, Third-Party v. Armstrong Cork Company, the Celotex Corporation, Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, Owens-Illinois Glass Company, Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., and Garlock, Inc., Third- Party
Co. v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375, 383-84 , 44 S.Ct. 391, 392-93 , 68 L.Ed. 748 (1924); Cruz v. Maritime Co. of Philippines, 702 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1983); Powell v. Offshore Navigation, Inc., 644 F.2d 1063, 1068 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 972 , 102 S.Ct. 521 , 70 L.Ed.2d 391 (1981); Wade v. Rogala, 270 F.2d 280, 283 (3d Cir.1959); Branic v. Wheeling Steel Corp., 152 F.2d 887, 890 (3d Cir.1945); Gavalek v. Coscol Petroleum Corp., 491 F.Supp. 188 , 190 n. 2 (E.D.Mich.1979).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Petersen v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
Co. v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375, 383-84 , 44 S.Ct. 391, 392-93 , 68 L.Ed. 748 (1924); Cruz v. Maritime Co. of Philippines, 702 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1983); Powell v. Offshore Navigation, Inc., 644 F.2d 1063, 1068 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 972 , 102 S.Ct. 521 , 70 L.Ed.2d 391 (1981); Wade v. Rogala, 270 F.2d 280, 283 (3d Cir.1959); Branic v. Wheeling Steel Corp., 152 F.2d 887, 890 (3d Cir.1945); Gavalek v. Coscol Petroleum Corp., 491 F.Supp. 188 , 190 n. 2 (E.D.Mich.1979).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sherrill v. Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling
To summarize, when the Jones Act is applicable federal law is involved and the district court must exercise its power to adjudicate, absent some exceptional circumstances such as the application of the abstention doctrine or, as here, the equitable principle of forum non conveniens. 702 F.2d at 48 (emphasis added).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Santiago Pereira v. Utah Transport, Inc. And Utah Shippers, Inc.
Cruz v. Maritime Co. of Philippines, 702 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Walters v. Prince of Fundy Cruises, Ltd.
See Cruz v. Maritime Co. of Philippines, 549 F.Supp. 285, 288 (S.D.N.Y.1982), aff'd, 702 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gertrude Baumgart v. Fairchild Aircraft Corporation and Swearingen Aviation Corporation
See also Cruz v. Maritime Co. of Philippines, 702 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1983) (upholding forum non conveniens dismissal of Jones Act claim even though Jones Act provides that jurisdiction “shall be” in the district court.) From our review of the relevant materials, the legislative purpose, and the effect of the language used to achieve that purpose, we conclude that § 157(b)(5) was intended to confer new power upon the district court in which a bankruptcy is pending to qualify the choice of venue made by a plaintiff, and was not enacted "to vest the power of choice in the plaintiff.” 10 A…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Baumgart v. Fairchild Aircraft Corp.
See also Cruz v. Maritime Co. of Philippines, 702 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1983) (upholding forum non conveniens dismissal of Jones Act claim even though Jones Act provides that jurisdiction "shall be" in the district court.) From our review of the relevant materials, the legislative purpose, and the effect of the language used to achieve that purpose, we conclude that § 157(b)(5) was intended to confer new power upon the district court in which a bankruptcy is pending to qualify the choice of venue made by a plaintiff, and was not enacted "to vest the power of choice in the plaintiff."10 An enact…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Trivelloni-Lorenzi v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.
Compare Cruz v. Maritime Co. of Philippines, 702 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1983) (Jones Act cases treated like all other cases on forum non conveniens issues) with Villar v. Crowley Maritime Co., 782 F.2d 1478 , 1479 (9th Cir.1986) (adopting modified analysis announced by Fifth Circuit) and Sigalis v. Lido Maritime Co.-M/V ROYAL ODYSSEY, 776 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir.1983) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, Louisiana on July 9, 1982. Luis Alberto Trivelloni-Lorenzi, and Susanna Electra Trivelloni-Lorenzi v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., Ernesto Serio Pampin Lopez, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of His Deceased Mother Sara E. Lopez De Pampin v. Pan American Airways, Inc., and United States of America
Compare Cruz v. Maritime Co. of Philippines, 702 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1983) (Jones Act cases treated like all other cases on forum non conveniens issues) with Villar v. Crowley Maritime Co., 782 F.2d 1478 , 1479 (9th Cir.1986) (adopting modified analysis announced by Fifth Circuit) and Sigalis v. Lido Maritime Co.-M/V ROYAL ODYSSEY, 776 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir.1983) (same).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Nathaniel CRUZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MARITIME COMPANY OF PHILIPPINES, Defendant-Appellee
v.
MARITIME COMPANY OF PHILIPPINES, Defendant-Appellee
857, Docket 82-7785.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Mar 10, 1983.
Florrie L. Wertheimer, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant., John R. Geraghty, New York City (John P. James, Healy & Baillie, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Timbers, Cardamone, Bonsal.
Cited by 41 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court (Leval, J.), 549 F.Supp. 285 (S.D.N.Y.1982), granting defendant Maritime Company of Philippines’ motion to dismiss plaintiff Nathaniel Cruz’s tort action on the ground of forum non conveniens. The district court appropriately applied the correct standards for determining whether to dismiss on forum non conveniens' grounds. We do not find that it abused its large measure of discretion in ordering dismissal, see Alcoa Steamship Co., [*48] Inc. v. M/V Nordic Regent, 654 F.2d 147, 158 (2d Cir.1980) (en banc), and we therefore affirm.
We write simply to point out that maritime choice of law principles are not involved in a forum non conveniens analysis and that the district court’s discussion on the subject was therefore unnecessary. Confusion may understandably have arisen from dicta in Antypas v. Cia. Maritima San Basilio, S.A., 541 F.2d 307, 310 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1098, 97 S.Ct. 1116, 51 L.Ed.2d 545 (1977), which indicated that if the Jones Act applied, the court was without power to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. Antypas, however, does not actually deal with a forum non conveniens issue. On its facts it can only be read to stand for the proposition that if the Jones Act applies the court may not dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Antypas, in turn, cites Bartholomew v. Universe Tankships, Inc., 263 F.2d 437, 443 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1000, 79 S.Ct. 1138, 3 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1959), for the principle cited by the district court. But Bartholomew also is not a case involving forum non conveniens. That portion of Bartholomew cited in Antypas sets forth the general rule that “once federal law is found applicable the court’s power to adjudicate must be exercised.” Id. (emphasis added). The court in Bartholomew also recognized, however, that in “exceptional situations,” such as where the abstention doctrine applies, the district court may dismiss despite the applicability of federal law. See id. A case involving forum non conveniens, like one involving abstention, presents just such an exceptional situation. See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 504, 67 S.Ct. 839, 841, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947) (quoting Canada Malting Co. v. Paterson Steamship, Ltd., 285 U.S. 413, 422-23, 52 S.Ct. 413, 415, 76 L.Ed. 837 (1932)).
To summarize, when the Jones Act is applicable federal law is involved and the district court must exercise its power to adjudicate, absent some exceptional circumstances such as the application of the abstention doctrine or, as here, the equitable principle of forum non conveniens.