33 U.S.C. § 948

Laws inapplicable

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 33 CasesGoogle Scholar

Nothing in sections 4283, 4284, 4285, 4286, or 4289 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, nor in section 18 of the Act entitled “An act to remove certain burdens on the American merchant marine and encourage the American foreign carrying trade, and for other purposes,” approved June 26, 1884, as amended, shall be held to limit the amount for which recovery may be had (1) in any suit at law or in admiralty where an employer has failed to secure compensation as required by this chapter, or (2) in any proceeding for compensation, any addition to compensation, or any civil penalty.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1951–2024 · leading case: A-Z Int'l Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Michael James Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

A-Z Int'l Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Michael James Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2003). “” 33 U.S.C. § 948 (a). These provisions demonstrate that Congress did not intend to permit an employer to seek a contempt citation in order to recover damages resulting from the filing of fraudulent claims.”

Tug Allie-B, Inc. Ex Rel. Allie-B v. United States, 273 F.3d 936 (11th Cir. 2001). “See 33 U.S.C. § 948 (LHWCA); 9 33 U.S.C. § 2718 (c)(OPA); 16 U.”

Petition of Spearin, Preston & Burrows, Inc. The Lavinia D. Luoma v. Spearin, Preston & Burrows, Inc, 190 F.2d 684 (2d Cir. 1951). · cites it 2× “Luoma’s daughter only claimed “expenses,” a compensation claim not subject to limitation, 33 U. S.C.A. § 948. Therefore, we conclude that petitioner complied with the statute when it instituted the limitation proceedings within six months of May 29, 1945, the date on which Luoma…”

Rodriguez-Flores v. U.S. Coatings, Inc., 133 So. 3d 874 (Ala. 2013). “33 U.S.C. § 948 (a). Under the Act, an employee may bring a retaliatory-discharge action and, if successful, may recover both compensatory and punitive damages.”

Petition of Am. MARC, Inc., 224 F. Supp. 573 (S.D. Cal. 1963). “The court characterized the first notice, as a compensation claim, and looking to 33 U.S.C. § 948 , supra, said: “Such authority as there is on the point supports the view that a notice which starts the running of the six months’ period must be notice of a claim of a kind…”

Thibodeaux v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 276 F.2d 42 (5th Cir. 1960). “33 U.S.C.A. § 948 . With this elaborate provision for effectual compliance with the Act and an actual financial ability to pay compensation awarded under it, — rights and obligations in no way dependent upon prior notices — there is no indication that Congress intended the…”

Brink v. Xe Holding, LLC (E.D. Va. 2024). · cites it 3× “Judge Faruqui further recommended that GLS’s 3 The complaint alleged violations of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 948 (a), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.”

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.