Andrew Anthony Aho v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Andrew Anthony Aho v. United States

374 F.2d 885, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7006, 1967 A.M.C. 1703

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 23, 1967

Docket23866

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 374 F.2d 885 (Andrew Anthony Aho v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andrew Anthony Aho v. United States, 374 F.2d 885, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7006, 1967 A.M.C. 1703 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Presented again is the question whether Yaka, 1 which rejected literal application of the exclusive liability section as to private shipowners, 33 U.S.C.A. § 905, permits the same result as to seamen on public vessels under a similar exclusive provision in the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 757 (b), in a suit under the Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C.A. §§ 781-790.

In Suhar v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 351 F.2d 952, without saying so we necessarily rejected this contention which had been specifically urged. The result was the same in our earlier decision in- Jarvis v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 342 F.2d 799, cert, denied, 1965, 382 U.S. 831, 86 S.Ct. 70, 15 L.Ed.2d 75. Since then two things of significance have occurred. The Supreme Court in Amell v. United States, 1966, 384 U.S. 158, 86 S.Ct. 1384, 16 L.Ed.2d 445, 447, expressly recognized the continuing vitality of its earlier decisions 2 on which we specifically relied. More recently and more important it has in effect given specific approval to Jarvis. See United States v. Demko, 1966, 385 U.S. 149, 87 S.Ct. 382, 17 L.Ed.2d 258, 261, note 4.

Affirmed.

1

. Reed v. SS Yaka, 1963, 373 U.S. 410, 83 S.Ct. 1349, 10 L.Ed.2d 448, 1963 AMC 1373.

2

. Johansen v. United States, 343 U.S. 427, 72 S.Ct. 849, 96 L.Ed. 1051; Patterson v. United States, 359 U.S. 495, 79 S.Ct. 936, 3 L.Ed.2d 971.

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

PER CURIAM:

Presented again is the question whether Yaka, 1 which rejected literal application of the exclusive liability section as to private shipowners, 33 U.S.C.A. § 905, permits the same result as to seamen on public vessels under a similar exclusive provision in the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 757 (b), in a suit under the Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C.A. §§ 781-790.

In Suhar v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 351 F.2d 952, without saying so we necessarily rejected this contention which had been specifically urged. The result was the same in our earlier decision in- Jarvis v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 342 F.2d 799, cert, denied, 1965, 382 U.S. 831, 86 S.Ct. 70, 15 L.Ed.2d 75. Since then two things of significance have occurred. The Supreme Court in Amell v. United States, 1966, 384 U.S. 158, 86 S.Ct. 1384, 16 L.Ed.2d 445, 447, expressly recognized the continuing vitality of its earlier decisions 2 on which we specifically relied. More recently and more important it has in effect given specific approval to Jarvis. See United States v. Demko, 1966, 385 U.S. 149, 87 S.Ct. 382, 17 L.Ed.2d 258, 261, note 4.

Affirmed.

1

. Reed v. SS Yaka, 1963, 373 U.S. 410, 83 S.Ct. 1349, 10 L.Ed.2d 448, 1963 AMC 1373.

2

. Johansen v. United States, 343 U.S. 427, 72 S.Ct. 849, 96 L.Ed. 1051; Patterson v. United States, 359 U.S. 495, 79 S.Ct. 936, 3 L.Ed.2d 971.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 F.2d 885, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7006, 1967 A.M.C. 1703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrew-anthony-aho-v-united-states-ca5-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack