46 U.S.C. § 12104
Applications for documentation
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
12104(a) | 46:12103(a) (related to filing by owner), (b)(1). | |
12104(b) | 46:12103(b)(2). | |
A prior section 12104, Pub. L. 98–89,
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2022 · leading case: Interpool Ltd. v. Char Yigh Marine (Panama) S.A., 890 F.2d 1453 (9th Cir. 1989).
Interpool Ltd. v. Char Yigh Marine (Panama) S.A., 890 F.2d 1453 (9th Cir. 1989). “748, 751 (1981); see also 46 U.S.C. § 12104 (3); ITT Indus. Credit Co.”
ITT Indus. Credit Co. v. M/V Richard C, 617 F. Supp. 761 (E.D. La. 1985). “46 U.S.C. § 12104 (formerly 46 U.S.C. § 65 (g)).”
Conoco, Inc. v. Skinner, 781 F. Supp. 298 (D. Del. 1991). “46 U.S.C. § 12104 ; 55 Fed.Reg. 51244 (1990) (to be codified at 46 C.”
Myers v. Am. Triumph F/V, 260 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). “” See 46 U.S.C. § 12104 (2). Nothing could be plainer than that.”
N. Ins. v. 1996 Searay Model 370DA Yacht, 453 F. Supp. 2d 905 (D.S.C. 2006). “” 46 U.S.C. § 12104 (3); Hozie v. The Vessel Highland Light, 182 F.”
Conoco, Inc. v. Skinner, 970 F.2d 1206 (3rd Cir. 1992). “46 U.S.C.A. § 12104 (West Supp.1992); see also 46 U.”
Singleton v. United States, 789 F. Supp. 492 (D.P.R. 1992). “46 U.S.C. § 12104 reads: "Effect of documentation, A certificate of documentation is — (1) conclusive evidence of nationality for international purposes, but not in a proceeding conducted under the laws of the United States.”
Bass River Assocs. v. Mayor of Bass River Twp., 743 F.2d 159 (3rd Cir. 1984). “46 U.S.C.A. § 12104 (formerly 46 U.S.C. § 65g) (emphasis added).”
Chase Manhattan Fin. Servs., Inc. v. McMillian, 896 F.2d 452 (10th Cir. 1990). “See 46 U.S.C. § 12104 (3) (certificate of documentation is not conclusive evidence of ownership where ownership is in issue); St.”
Keeling v. Ozey (In Re Ozey), 172 B.R. 83 (Bankr. N.D. Okla 1994). “government stating that the ERSAN was first owned by Zita and then by Ersan Resources and that the ERSAN V was owned by Ersan Resources.”
Hunter v. Lease Sea, Inc. (In Re Banner Yachts, Inc.), 144 B.R. 985 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1992). “” 46 U.S.C. § 12104 (3) (1988). Although Plaintiff maintains that ownership of the vessel is not at issue in this proceeding, the Court does not agree.”
McCarty v. Comm'r, 53 T.C.M. 854 (Tax Ct. 1987). “See 46 USC § 12104 (1982) . However, craft such as petitioner's, which are licensed as pleasure vessels, were not "allowed to transport merchandise or carry passengers for pay.”
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.