46 U.S.C. § 10602
Recovery of wages and shares of fish under agreement
Historical and Revision Notes | |
|---|---|
Revised section | Source section (U.S. Code) |
10602 | 46:533, 534 |
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Paul v. All Alaskan Seafoods, Inc.
Paul v. All Alaskan Seafoods, Inc. (2001)
“46 U.S.C. § 10602 . 46 U.S.C. § 10602 (2)(c).”
Paul v. All Alaskan Seafoods, Inc. (2001)
“[21] 46 U.S.C. § 10602 . [22] 46 U.S.C. § 10602 (c).”
Thorman v. American Seafoods Co. (2005)
“See 46 U.S.C. § 10602 (a). Nonetheless, Thorman argues that the suit is timely because it was brought within six months after American Seafoods produced a Confidential Offering Memorandum in another lawsuit, which he contends finally brought his claims to light.”
Doyle v. Huntress, Inc. (2004)
“Essentially, Defendants argue that § 10601 does not foreclose the owners of fishing trawlers from entering into oral contracts with their crewmembers, but, rather, works with the following statutory subsection, 46 U.S.C. § 10602 (1988), to provide a statute of limitations for…”
Doyle v. Huntress, Inc. (2005)
“See 46 U.S.C. § 10602 (a) (1988) (“When fish caught under an agreement under section 10601 of this title are delivered to the owner of the vessel for processing and are sold, the vessel is liable in rem for the wages and shares of the proceeds of the seamen.”
Jeff Gruver v. Lesman Fisheries Inc. Bob Lesman F/v Sunset Charge, Official Number 534685, in Rem (2007)
“§ 1333 , 46 U.S.C. § 10602 , and 45 U.S.C. § 56 . The complaint charged Les-man with negligence and unpaid wages.”
Bjornsson v. U.S. Dominator, Inc. (1993)
“The vessel owner claims that 46 U.S.C. § 10602 provides the proper remedy for violation of section 10601.”
Seattle-First National Bank v. Conaway (1996)
“See 46 U.S.C. § 10602 (a). The district court decided that the six-month statute of limitations did not apply to the oral agreements upon which Conaway based his claim and therefore granted summary judgment in his favor.”
Do v. Ocean Peace Inc. (2002)
“The district court also granted summary judgment to Ocean Peace on Do’s and Pham’s remaining wage claims because of their failure to file suit within the six-month limitations periods specified by their contracts and 46 U.S.C. § 10602 . The questions before us now are whether Do…”
Harper v. United States Seafoods LP (2002)
“46 U.S.C. § 10602 . And, where there is no controlling written agreement, wages are based on a statutory formula: the higher of the amount agreed to or the highest rate of wages at the port where the seaman was engaged.”
Fuller v. Golden Age Fisheries (1994)
“The district court held that the plaintiffs’ in rem claims against the vessel were time-barred under 46 U.S.C. § 10602 (a). The court also held that plaintiffs’ in personam wage claims were time-barred under a provision in their employment contracts.”
Kurtz v. Commissioner (2009)
“” 46 U.S.C. § 10602 (c). 46 U.S.C. § 10501-09 similarly governs the rights of seamen on coastwise voyages.”
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.