This case arose from a 1956 shipboard fire on the SS Alcoa Corsair caused by a defective oil-line coupling that had been improperly reconnected during boiler repairs performed hours earlier by defendant Charles Ferran & Company. Plaintiff Alcoa Steamship Company sued Ferran and its insurers for damages, and the court found Ferran negligent in the repair work, which proximately caused the fire. The court upheld a contractual "Red Letter" clause that limited Ferran's liability to $300,000 as part of the parties' established course of dealing. It further held that Alcoa's own negligence and the vessel's unseaworthy condition triggered the avoidable-consequences doctrine, requiring apportionment of damages between the parties.
The case involved a white woman who was arrested by New Orleans police officers for vagrancy after being observed at Harry's Steak House, a bar and nightclub in a predominantly Black neighborhood that served only drinks along with entertainment. She sued the officers under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming they deprived her of rights to public accommodations by warning her against patronizing the establishment and arresting her. The court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. It reasoned that Harry's was not a covered place of public accommodation under the Act because it was not principally engaged in selling food, its operations did not affect commerce in the required way, and the establishment itself engaged in no discrimination or segregation that could be attributed to state action.
In this case, the District Attorney of Plaquemines Parish sued federal voting examiners appointed under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the local registrar in state court, obtaining an ex parte temporary restraining order that limited the examiners' ability to register voters under the Act's procedures. The examiners removed the case to federal district court, which dissolved the restraining order and addressed motions to remand and dismiss. The court denied remand, holding that removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 because the examiners were federal officers acting under color of their office in applying state voter qualification laws consistent with the Act. The suit sought to enjoin the examiners from registering voters who allegedly failed to meet certain state requirements on age and residence, but the court concluded that federal jurisdiction was appropriate even if the examiners' instructions were later found invalid.
This case involved a third-tier contractor who supplied materials for a federal construction project but was not paid by the subcontractor. He sent notice to the general contractor via registered mail on the 90th day after last supplying materials, as required by the Miller Act for claims on the payment bond, but the notice arrived on the 91st day. The general contractor and its surety moved for summary judgment, arguing the notice was untimely because it was not received within 90 days. The court denied the motion, holding that the Miller Act's notice requirement is satisfied when the notice is properly registered and mailed by the 90th day, based on the statutory language specifying registered mail and the intent to favor claimants in timing disputes.
The case concerned a vessel owner's federal limitation of liability proceeding after a maritime casualty in Louisiana, during which claimants filed direct actions against the vessel's insurers under Louisiana's Direct Action Statute. The insurers moved to stay those state-court actions pending resolution of the limitation proceeding, raising questions about whether protection and indemnity insurers could benefit from the shipowner's statutory limitation and whether such direct actions were procedurally compatible with the federal limitation framework. The court reviewed the historical development of limitation of liability from European maritime law through early U.S. statutes, emphasizing that it traditionally restricted owners' personal liability to their interest in the vessel and freight. Drawing on the inconclusive 4-4-1 decision in Cushing v. Chaney, the opinion concluded that ambiguity in the interplay between federal limitation rights and state direct-action statutes required a clear resolution to guide litigants and courts.
The case involved Alcoa Steamship Company suing ship repair contractor Charles Ferran & Company and its insurers for over one million dollars in damages from a fire aboard the S/S ALCOA CORSAIR, which Alcoa alleged resulted from Ferran's negligent boiler repairs in breach of implied warranties. After trial on liability, the court found that Ferran's negligence proximately caused the initial fire but that Alcoa's negligence and the vessel's unseaworthiness contributed to the fire's escalation and resulting losses under the avoidable consequences doctrine. The court also held that a Red-Letter clause in the repair contract applied to limit Ferran's liability. The opinion did not address the amount or apportionment of damages.
