28 U.S.C. § 1873
Admiralty and maritime cases
In any case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction relating to any matter of contract or tort arising upon or concerning any vessel of twenty tons or upward, enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade, and employed in the business of commerce and navigation between places in different states upon the lakes and navigable waters connecting said lakes, the trial of all issues of fact shall be by jury if either party demands it.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1949–2021 · leading case: In Re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351 (4th Cir. 2007).
In Re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351 (4th Cir. 2007). “See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1873 (establishing right to jury trial for admiralty tort or contract cases involving certain Great Lakes shipping and coasting trade vessels); 46 U.”
Romero v. Int'l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (1959). “726 (1845), 28 U. S. C. § 1873 . Neither the Suits in Admiralty Act of 1920, 41 Stat.”
Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc., 364 U.S. 325 (1960). “The Orion was a Great Lakes vessel and the petitioner is entitled to a jury trial of his unseaworthiness claim under 28 U. S. C. § 1873 . See Troupe v. Chicago, D.”
Nice v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 305 F. Supp. 1167 (W.D. Mich. 1969). “The second part of the opinion addresses plaintiff’s position that a jury impaneled under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1873 is advisory only. Defendant’s motion for a new trial.”
Frederickson v. Luedtke Constr. Co., 427 F. Supp. 1309 (W.D. Mich. 1977). “The relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1873 , provides: “In any case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction relating to any matter of contract or tort arising upon or concerning any vessel of twenty tons or upward, enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade, and employed in the…”
Kathleen Troupe v. Chicago, Duluth & Georgian Bay Transit Co., 234 F.2d 253 (2d Cir. 1956). “28 U.S.C. § 1873 . Since a seaman is entitled to a jury trial on a negligence claim under the Jones Act, 46 U.”
McCann v. Falgout Boat Co., 44 F.R.D. 34 (S.D. Tex. 1968). “17 Nonetheless, with or without Congressional or Supreme Court sanction, the courts have followed the tradition of disallowing a demand for a jury in admiralty cases, except under the specific authorization of 28 U.S.C. § 1873 . See Texas Menhaden Co.”
Leah B. Sibley v. Fulton Dekalb Collection Serv., 677 F.2d 830 (11th Cir. 1982). “The Great Lakes Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1873 , made explicit provision for jury trial.”
Stand. Oil Co. of California v. Arizona, California, Florida, Oregon, & Washington, 738 F.2d 1021 (9th Cir. 1984). “§ 1346 (a)(1) (providing for jury trial against the United States in tax refund cases); 28 U.S.C. § 1873 (providing for jury trial in admiralty actions involving shipping on Great Lakes).”
Concordia Co. v. Panek, 115 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 1997). “, 28 U.S.C. § 1873 (1994) (Great Lakes Act); 46 U.”
Doucette v. Vincent, 194 F.2d 834 (1st Cir. 1952). “); Reviser’s Note to 28 U.S.C. § 1873 ; Rule 38, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.”
Horton v. Andrie, Inc., 408 F. Supp. 2d 477 (W.D. Mich. 2005). “Andrie demanded a jury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1873 , which permits a jury trial in an admiralty case in very limited circumstances.”
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.