Notes of Decisions
Cited in
35
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case:
Doyle v. Huntress, Inc., 419 F.3d 3 (1st Cir. 2005).
Doyle v. Huntress, Inc., 419 F.3d 3 (1st Cir. 2005).
· cites it 6× “§ 11107 , and the liability provisions of 46 U.S.C. § 10601 . We hold that it does.”
Doyle v. Huntress, Inc., 301 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D.R.I. 2004).
· cites it 9× “, alleging that these corporations failed to provide the Plaintiff seamen with written contracts prior to proceeding on several fishing voyages, as required by 46 U.S.C. § 10601 (1988). Plaintiffs claim statutory damages under a companion statute, 46 U.”
Miller v. Arctic Alaska Fisheries Corp., 944 P.2d 1005 (Wash. 1997).
· cites it 7× “At issue on appeal are the interpretation and application of ER 904 to various medical opinion letters, the resolution of the seaman’s unseaworthiness claim as a matter of law, resolution of the seaman’s contract claims under 46 U.S.C. § 10601 , and whether substantial evidence…”
Miller v. Arctic Alaska Fisheries Corp., 944 P.2d 1005 (Wash. 1997).
· cites it 7× “At issue on appeal are the interpretation and *1007 application of ER 904 to various medical opinion letters, the resolution of the seaman's unseaworthiness claim as a matter of law, resolution of the seaman's contract claims under 46 U.S.C. § 10601 , and whether substantial…”
Bjornsson v. U.S. Dominator, Inc., 863 P.2d 235 (Alaska 1993).
· cites it 8× “On appeal, Bjornsson argues that the superior court erred in not applying 46 U.S.C. § 10601 which requires that fishing compensation arrangements be made in writing in order to be effective.”
Flores v. Am. Seafoods Co., 335 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 9× “When the events occurred that gave rise to-this litigation, the applicable statute, 46 U.S.C. § 10601 (a) (2000), provided simply that a “fishing agreement” must be “in writing” if the fishing vessel met other statutory requirements that are not in dispute here.”
Doyle v. Huntress, Inc., 513 F.3d 331 (1st Cir. 2008).
· cites it 5× “§ 11107 , where the claims are meant both to compensate and to encourage compliance with the requirement in 46 U.S.C. § 10601 that the seamen be given pre-trip written agreements.”
Harper v. United States Seafoods LP, 278 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2002).
· cites it 9× “46 U.S.C. § 10601 . Although the predecessor statute dates from the late 1770s, surprisingly, this is a question of first impression in the Ninth Circuit.”
Day v. Am. Seafoods Co., 557 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “2 ASC complied by reaching a written agreement with O’Neal that stated prominently that “the term of this Contract Period is agreed to be for one (1) trip.” The agreement defined “trip” as one fishing voyage, from the time the seaman reports to the vessel to the time the catch…”
Doyle v. Huntress, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 2d 337 (D.R.I. 2007).
· cites it 4× “In their complaint, Plaintiff crewmen allege that, during the years 1993 through 2000, the ships’ owners failed to provide them with written wage agreements prior to their fishing voyages, as required by 46 U.S.C. § 10601 . They further claim statutory damages pursuant to 46 U.”
Paul v. All Alaskan Seafoods, Inc., 106 Wash. App. 406 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
“For example, a seaman is entitled to double wages if not paid within 24 hours after the cargo has been discharged or within 4 days after the seaman is discharged, whichever is earlier. 46 U.S.C. § 10313 (f).”
— 46 U.S.C. § 10601(a) — 2 cases
— 46 U.S.C. § 10601(c)(2) — 1 case
Doyle v. Huntress, Inc., 301 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D.R.I. 2004).
“, alleging that these corporations failed to provide the Plaintiff seamen with written contracts prior to proceeding on several fishing voyages, as required by 46 U.S.C. § 10601 (1988). Plaintiffs claim statutory damages under a companion statute, 46 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.