Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Fontana v. Grace Line, Inc.

Fontana v. Grace Line, Inc., 205 F.2d 151 (2d Cir. 1953)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1953-06-22
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Decree affirmed on opinion below, 106 F.Supp. 461.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Fontana v. Grace Line, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
26 opinions
FONTANA v. GRACE LINE,205 F.2d 151(2nd Cir. 1953)
Thomas FONTANA, Libellant-Appellant, v. GRACE LINE, Inc. and States Marine
Corporation, Respondents, and Huron Stevedoring Corporation, Pennsylvania
Railroad Company, Jersey Contracting Corporation, Roslyn Scow Corporation,
and Penn Stevedoring Corporation, Respondents-Impleaded, and Huron
Stevedoring Corporation, Intervenor-Appellee.
No. 254, Docket 22671.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued June 2, 1953.
Decided June 22, 1953.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; Edward Weinfeld, Judge.
Nathan Baker, New York City, Bernard Chazen, Hoboken, N.J., on the brief, for libellant-appellant.

Kirlin Campbell Keating, New York City, Thomas Coyne and Vernon Sims Jones, New York City, of counsel, for intervenor-appellee.
Before SWAN, Chief Judge, and CLARK and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Decree affirmed on opinion below,106 F. Supp. 461.Page 152