Peralta Shipping Corporation v. Smith & Johnson (Shipping) Corp. (1984)
green
· 86 citation events
across 10 courts.
Showing the 22 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198420052026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Binnings, Inc. v. Saudi Riyadh (1987)
See Peralta, 739 F.2d at 804 ("A general agency relationship is intimately related with the shipping industry and would warrant inclusion within admiralty.") Nevertheless, the rule has been firmly established since the Supreme Court decision in Minturn v. Maynard, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 476 , 15 L.Ed. 235 (1854).
"A general agency relationship is intimately related with the shipping industry and would warrant inclusion within admiralty."
green
Shipping Financial Services Corporation v. William J. Drakos, Duke Petroleum Transport Corporation and Omi Pe… (1998)
See, e.g., Admiral Oriental Line v. United States, 86 F.2d 201, 203 (2d Cir.1936); Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson (Shipping) Corp., 739 F.2d 798, 803 (2d Cir. *132 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1031 , 105 S.Ct. 1405 , 84 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985).
green
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (1987)
Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson (Shipping) Corp., 739 F.2d 798, 801 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1031 , 105 S.Ct. 1405 , 84 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985); 1 Benedict on Admiralty Sec. 184, at 11-8 (7th ed. 1985).
green
Ingersoll Milling Machine Co. v. M/V Bodena (1987)
Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson (Shipping) Corp., 739 F.2d 798, 801 (2d Cir.1984), cert, denied, 470 U.S. 1031 , 105 S.Ct. 1405 , 84 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985); 1 Benedict on Admiralty § 184, at 11-8 (7th ed. 1985).
The complaint, however, is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. *79 “A demarcation of ancient vintage, consistently recognized from the earliest days, is that agreements preliminary to a maritime contract are not cognizable in admiralty.” Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson (Shipping), 739 F.2d 798, 801 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1031 , 105 S.Ct. 1405 , 84 L.Ed.2d 791 , reh’g denied, 471 U.S. 1112 , 105 S.Ct. 2349 , 85 L.Ed.2d 865 (1985).
green
Continental Cameras Co., Inc. v. Foa & Son Corp. (1987)
It has been widely recognized that “[njeither the Constitution nor applicable statutes lay down the criteria for drawing the boundary between maritime and non-maritime jurisdiction.” Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson (Shipping), 739 F.2d 798, 800 (2d Cir.1984).
green
Johnson Products Co., Inc. v. M/V LA MOLINERA (1985)
Cf. Peralta, supra, 739 F.2d at 803 (noting that an agent’s supervision over maritime contracts does not create maritime jurisdiction as to the agent).
noting that an agent’s supervision over maritime contracts does not create maritime jurisdiction as to the agent
Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson Shipping Corp., 739 F.2d 798, 802 (2d Cir.1984) (internal citations omitted).
The “preliminary to” cases do hold that certain services provided to vessels are not within the court’s admiralty jurisdiction because they are “preliminary to” maritime contracts. 6 See, e.g., Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson (Shipping) Corp., 739 F.2d 798, 801-02 (2d Cir.1984) (holding that general agency agreements to procure “husbanding” service for a vessel are preliminary services not within maritime jurisdiction), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1031 , 105 S.Ct. 1405 …
green
Venezuelan Container Line C.A. v. Navitran Corp. (1991)
The Second Circuit has stated in dicta that, “[a] general agency relationship is intimately related with the shipping industry and would warrant inclusion within admiralty.” Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson (Shipping) Corp., 739 F.2d 798, 804 (1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1031 , 105 S.Ct. 1405 , 84 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985).
green
Kaleidoscope Tours v. M/V \Tropicana\"" (1990)
Having noted the recent reaffir-mance of the rule in Minturn v. Maynard by the Second Circuit in Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson (Shipping) Corp., 739 F.2d 798, 802-04 (2d Cir.1984), 1 cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1031 , 105 S.Ct. 1405 , 84 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985), the court in Ingersoll Milling rightly observed that whether or not a particular agreement is determined to be a maritime contract should depend “not on the name assigned to the contract, but rather on the nature o…
See 739 F.2d 798, 799 (CA2 1984). 4 Two years after the agreement was signed, petitioner commenced this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
green
E.S. Binnings, Inc. v. M/V Saudi Riyadh (1987)
Marine R. & Shipbuilding Co., 249 U.S. 119, 125 , 39 S.Ct. 221, 223 , 63 L.Ed. 510 (1918); accord, Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson (Shipping) Corp., 739 F.2d 798, 801 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1031 , 105 S.Ct. 1405 , 84 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985).
See, e.g., Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson (Shipping) Corp., 739 F.2d 798 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1031 , 105 S.Ct. 1405 , 84 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985); Kossick, 365 U.S. at 736 , 81 S.Ct. at 890-891 ("The only question is whether the transaction relates to ships and vessels, masters and mariners, as agents of commerce...."); North Pacific S.S.
See, e.g., Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson (Shipping) Corp., 739 F.2d 798 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1031 , 105 S.Ct. 1405 , 84 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985); Kossick, 365 U.S. at 736 , 81 S.Ct. at 890-891 (“The only question is whether the transaction relates to ships and vessels, masters and mariners, as agents of commerce____”); North Pacific S.S.
green
Continental Cameras Co. v. Foa & Son Corp. (1987)
See generally Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson Corp., 739 F.2d 798 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1031 , 105 S.Ct. 1405 , 84 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985).
See generally Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson Corp., 739 F.2d 798 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1031 , 105 S.Ct. 1405 , 84 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985).
green
Fernandez v. Haynie (2000)
Compare, e.g., Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson (Shipping) Corp., 739 F.2d 798 (2d Cir. 1984) (holding that all general agency contracts are excluded from admiralty jurisdiction), with Hinkins Steamship Agency, Inc. v. Freighters, Inc., 498 F.2d 411 , 411— 12 (9th Cir.1974) (per curiam) (looking to the character of the work performed by a husbanding agent, and concluding that the contract was maritime because the services performed were “necessary for the continuing…
holding that all general agency contracts are excluded from admiralty jurisdiction
green
United States v. M/V Santa Clara I (1994)
See, e.g., Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson (Shipping) Corp., 739 F.2d 798, 801 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1031 , 105 S.Ct. 1405 , 84 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985).
green
Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines, Inc. (1989)
See Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith Johnson (shipping), 739 F.2d 798 (2d Cir.1984); P.D.
green
Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines, Inc. (1989)
See Peralta, 739 F.2d at 800 & n. 2 (“Congress [through the Federal Maritime Lien Act] has expressly included certain transactions or events within admiralty.”).
See, e.g., Peralta Shipping v. Smith & Johnson, 739 F.2d 798 (2d Cir.1984).