33 U.S.C. § 154
Repealed. Pub. L. 96–591, § 8(a), Dec. 24, 1980, 94 Stat. 3435
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases, 1927–1986 · leading case: The First Nat'l Bank of Chicago, of the Will of Wayne J. Hart, Deceased, Cross-Appellant v. Material Serv. Corp., a Corp., Cross, 597 F.2d 1110 (1st Cir. 1979).
The First Nat'l Bank of Chicago, of the Will of Wayne J. Hart, Deceased, Cross-Appellant v. Material Serv. Corp., a Corp., Cross, 597 F.2d 1110 (1st Cir. 1979). “33 U.S.C. § 154 (1976). 17 . Great Lakes Rule 24 provides: § 289.”
Atl. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Abc Ins. Co. & Garber Bros., Inc., 645 F.2d 528 (5th Cir. 1981). “’ 33 U.S.C. § 154 (1976). Since the collision in this case occurred below that point in the river, the inland rules do not apply.”
Linehan v. United States Lines, Inc., 417 F. Supp. 678 (D. Del. 1976). “The Delaware River and Bay is an inland water, and those vessels operating thereon are bound by the “Inland Rules”, 33 U.S.C. § 154 . *688 4. The Lotus at the time of the accident was a “sailing vessel” as defined in 33 U.”
United States v. Tug Colette Malloy, 507 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1975). “We cannot agree, and deem such findings clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Ins. Co. of North Am. v. John J. Bordlee Contractors, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 774 (E.D. La. 1982). “33 U.S.C. § 154 . Our careful analysis of the facts attendant to this accident and the application of the Inland Rules to the facts as we find them compel the conclusion that this casualty could not have occurred absent fault on the part of both the PINA and the MR.”
Andrews v. United States, 801 F.2d 644 (3rd Cir. 1986). “10-1 (1980) 33 U.S.C. § 154 (1976), which was in force at the time of the Andrewses’ accident, required all vessels on the rivers of the United States to follow the admiralty “Rules of the Road,” as contained in 33 U.”
Allied Chem. Corp. v. Hess Tankship Co., 661 F.2d 1044 (5th Cir. 1981). “Status of the Vessels The Inland Rules of the Road, 33 U.S.C. § 154 et seq., 13 which apply to this collision, supply the following definition: “A vessel is ‘underway’ within the meaning of these rules when she is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground.”
Allied Chem. Corp. v. Hess Tankship Co., 526 F. Supp. 1333 (E.D. La. 1979). “33 U.S.C. § 154 . Accordingly, a vessel is to be considered underway, “.”
Valley Towing Serv., Inc. v. S/S Am. Wheat, Freighters, Inc., 618 F.2d 341 (5th Cir. 1980). “Our holding is that the statute is transgressed by failure to signal in such a situation, because a contrary result would substantially dilute the congressional purpose for enacting such a rule, viz, the avoidance of maritime collisions, 33 U.”
In Re Landi's Petition, 194 F. Supp. 353 (S.D.N.Y. 1960). “96 , 33 U.S.C.A. § 154 et seq. The yacht Escape was a "steam vessel" within the definition of the Act, which stated that the words "steam vessel" shall include any vessel propelled by machinery.”
Makin v. Empresa Lineas Maritimas Argentinas, 630 F. Supp. 1168 (D. Mass. 1986). “Two sets of rules, the Navigation Rules for Harbors, Rivers and Inland Waters (hereinafter Inland Rules) codified at 33 U.S.C. § 154 et seq. and the Pilot Rules promulgated at 33 C.”
Am. Exp. Lines, Inc. v. Dredge Admiral, 254 F. Supp. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). “The present version of the relevant enabling act contains the language similar to that found in the original statute: “The following regulations for preventing collisions shall be followed by all vessels * * * ” 33 U.S.C. § 154 (1964). (Italics added.) The regulation in question…”
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.