American International Insurance Co. v. The Vessel Ss Fortaleza, Her Engines, Her Boilers, Etc., Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority

First Circuit

American International Insurance Co. v. The Vessel Ss Fortaleza, Her Engines, Her Boilers, Etc., Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority

585 F.2d 22, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8582

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedOctober 5, 1978

Docket78-1164

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 585 F.2d 22 (American International Insurance Co. v. The Vessel Ss Fortaleza, Her Engines, Her Boilers, Etc., Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American International Insurance Co. v. The Vessel Ss Fortaleza, Her Engines, Her Boilers, Etc., Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority, 585 F.2d 22, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8582 (1st Cir. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from the unopposed entry of summary judgment. On the papers before it when it acted, the district court was plainly warranted in concluding that there was no triable issue of fact. To be sure, we emphasized in Mack v. Cape Elizabeth School Board, 553 F.2d 720 (1st Cir. 1977), that if the moving party fails to make a sufficient showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, summary judgment should be denied even though opposing affidavits are not filed. Here, however, movant’s affidavit was adequate to support the granting of summary judgment in the absence of a counteraffidavit setting forth facts impugning those asserted by movant. That the vessel might, in the exercise of due care, have been able to avoid the storm, or taken special precautions for the cargo, are sheer speculations.

With respect to the contention that the court should have allowed discovery, the simple answer is that appellant should have made a request for discovery before, not after, the court had ruled on the motion. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of the motion requesting relief from the judgment.

Future appeals of this character will invite double costs.

Affirmed. Costs for appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from the unopposed entry of summary judgment. On the papers before it when it acted, the district court was plainly warranted in concluding that there was no triable issue of fact. To be sure, we emphasized in Mack v. Cape Elizabeth School Board, 553 F.2d 720 (1st Cir. 1977), that if the moving party fails to make a sufficient showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, summary judgment should be denied even though opposing affidavits are not filed. Here, however, movant’s affidavit was adequate to support the granting of summary judgment in the absence of a counteraffidavit setting forth facts impugning those asserted by movant. That the vessel might, in the exercise of due care, have been able to avoid the storm, or taken special precautions for the cargo, are sheer speculations.

With respect to the contention that the court should have allowed discovery, the simple answer is that appellant should have made a request for discovery before, not after, the court had ruled on the motion. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of the motion requesting relief from the judgment.

Future appeals of this character will invite double costs.

Affirmed. Costs for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

585 F.2d 22, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-international-insurance-co-v-the-vessel-ss-fortaleza-her-ca1-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack