28 U.S.C. § 1333

Admiralty, maritime and prize cases

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of:(1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.(2) Any prize brought into the United States and all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 931; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 79, 63 Stat. 101.)Historical and Revision Notes1948 Act

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 41(3) and 371 (3), (4) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§ 24, par. 3, 256, pars. 3, 4, 36 Stat. 1091, 1160; Oct. 6, 1917, ch. 97, §§ 1, 2, 40 Stat. 395; June 10, 1922, ch. 216, §§ 1, 2, 42 Stat. 634).

Section consolidates certain provisions of sections 41(3), 371(3) and 371(4) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed. Other provisions of sections 41(3) and 371(4), relating to seizures, are incorporated in section 1356 of this title. (See reviser’s note thereunder.)

The “saving to suitors” clause in sections 41(3) and 371(3) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was changed by substituting the words “any other remedy to which he is otherwise entitled” for the words “the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.” The substituted language is simpler and more expressive of the original intent of Congress and is in conformity with Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolishing the distinction between law and equity.

Provisions of section 41(3) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., based on the 1917 and 1922 amendments, relating to remedies under State workmen’s compensation laws, were deleted. Such amendments were held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. (See Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 1920, 40 S.Ct. 438, 253 U.S. 149, 64 L.Ed. 834, and State of Washington v. W. C. Dawson & Co., 1924, 44 S.Ct. 302, 264 U.S. 219, 68 L.Ed. 646.)

Words “libellant or petitioner” were substituted for “suitors” to describe moving party in admiralty cases.

Changes were made in phraseology.

1949 Act

This section amends section 1333(a)(1) of title 28, U.S.C., by substituting “suitors” for “libellant or petitioner” to conform to the language of the law in existence at the time of the enactment of the revision of title 28.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1949—Subd. (1). Act May 24, 1949, substituted “suitors” for “libellant or petitioner”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3,217 cases (499 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.
Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. (1995) scotus · cites it 10× “" 28 U. S. C. § 1333 (1). The traditional test for admiralty tort jurisdiction asked only whether the tort occurred on navigable waters.”
Tandon v. Captain's Cove Marina of Bridgeport, Inc. (2014) ca2 · cites it 6× “The district court dismissed their petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that this case falls outside the general grant of admiralty jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1333 . We now affirm. BACKGROUND A.”
County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. (2022) ca9 · cites it 6× “§ 1334 (b), and admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (1). Because the district court did not err in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under any of these asserted grounds, we affirm.”
Foremost Insurance v. Richardson (1982) scotus · cites it 8× “See 28 U. S. C. § 1333 . We granted certiorari to resolve the confusion in the lower courts respecting the impact of Executive Jet Aviation, Inc.”
Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc. (2001) scotus · cites it 5× “” 28 U. S. C. § 1333 (1). Another statute grants vessel owners the right to seek limited liability in federal court for claims of damage aboard their vessels.”
Leopard Marine & Trading, Ltd. v. Easy St. Ltd. (2018) ca2 · cites it 6× “"); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1333 . 10 On the other hand, state courts share with the federal courts jurisdiction over most actions in personam.”
Francis Barker, Jr. v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., et (2013) ca5 · cites it 5× “This overlap has caused some confusion among courts considering removal of OCSLA claims in which maritime law provides the substantive rule of decision, because even though federal courts have original jurisdiction over maritime claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 , they do not have…”
Gregoire v. Enterprise Marine Services, LLC (2014) laed · cites it 10× “(“Enterprise”) and ABC Insurance Company (“ABC”), alleging claims “under the Jones Act and the General Maritime Law” for personal injuries sustained while working for Enterprise and invoking the “saving to suitors” clause under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 . (R. Doc. 1-2, 2). In his…”
Kelley Mala v. Crown Bay Marina (2013) ca3 · cites it 2× “The Seventh Amendment creates a right to civil jury trials in federal court: “In Suits at common law ... the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”
Coronel v. AK Victory (2014) wawd · cites it 10× “and The Fishing Company of Alaska removed the action to this court, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1333 as the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.”
St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Lago Canyon, Inc. (2009) ca11 · cites it 7× “The commercial towing section of the Marine Policy covers reasonable costs, up to $7,500, to tow the yacht if it is "disabled from a cause other than a covered loss.”
Dan Carmichael McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc. (2017) ca11 · cites it 2× “, 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (1) (“saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled”).”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) — 16 cases
Truehart v. Blandon (1987) laed
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.