IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF HERCULES CARRIERS, INC., FOR EXONERATION FROM OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AS OWNER OF THE M/V SUMMIT VENTURE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., CLAIMANTS, CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMPANY, CLIPPER MARITIME CO., LTD., I.S. JOSEPH COMPANY, INC., ULTRAOCEAN S.A., SABINE TOWING & TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, CLAIMANTS-APPELLANTS; IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AS OWNER OF THE USCGC BLACKTHORN, FOR EXONERATION FROM OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. I.S. JOSEPH SHIPPING, LTD., I.S. JOSEPH COMPANY, INC., CLIPPER MARITIME CO., LTD., PELL NEDERLAND, B.V. TERMAR NAVIGATION COMPANY, TURBANA BANANA CORP., GULFCOAST TRANSIT CO., ABC CONTAINERLINE, N.V., WALLENIUS REDERIERNA AND MOTORSHIPS, INC., A/B HELSINGFORS STEAMSHIP CO., LTD., AND ALIANZA NAVIERA ARGENTINA, D.A., MARTHANASSA COMPANIA NAVIERA, S.A., NAVIOS CORP. AND OCEANSIDE LTD., ET AL., CLAIMANTS-APPELLANTS

11th Cir. | 1984-03-30
Nos. 81-6005, 81-6078
728 F.2d 1359 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1984) Positive Treatment
Cited by 24 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

Because the court is equally divided as to whether to affirm or reverse, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED by operation of law.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (22 total)

  • Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (U.S. 1997)
    …dler, 752 F. 2d 1148, 1150-1151 (CA6 1985); United States v. Brantley, 786 F. 2d 1322, 1327, and n. 2 (CA7 1986); United States v. Hicks, 619 F. 2d 752, 758 (CA8 1980); United States v. Daily, 921 F. 2d 994, 1004 (CA10 1990); United States v. Lopez, 728 F. 2d 1359, 1362, n. 4 (CA11 1984); United States v. Hansen, 772 F. 2d 940, 950 (CADC 1985). The Government represents — and petitioner has not disputed — that the sum total of petitioner’s argument at trial concerning materiality consisted of the following c…
  • United States v. Darby, 744 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir. 1984)
    …of extraneous information, outside influence or other jury misconduct, the decision whether to investigate rests in the sound discretion of the district court. See United States v. Barshov, 733 F. 2d 842, 850 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Lopez, 728 F. 2d 1359, 1363 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Williams, 716 F. 2d 864, 865 (11th Cir.1983); United States v. Edwards, 696 F. 2d 1277, 1282 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 1884, 76 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983). In Edwards, the court observed: [T]his c…
  • United States v. Hernan Francisco Perez-Tosta, 36 F.3d 1552 (11th Cir. 1994)
    …ms were not first raised before the district court and if there has been, no opportunity to develop a record of evidence relevant to the merits of the claim. See United States v. Hilliard, 752 F. 2d 578, 580 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Lopez, 728 F. 2d 1359, 1363 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 828, 105 S.Ct. 112, 83 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984); United States v. Griffin, 699 F. 2d 1102, 1107 (11th Cir.1983). Rojas did not raise ineffective assistance of counsel as a ground for his motion for new trial, and…

Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw