Rowe v. Fishing Vessel Big Jim II

Third Circuit

Rowe v. Fishing Vessel Big Jim II

324 F.2d 735, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3568

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedNovember 27, 1963

DocketNo. 14448

StatusPublished

This text of 324 F.2d 735 (Rowe v. Fishing Vessel Big Jim II) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rowe v. Fishing Vessel Big Jim II, 324 F.2d 735, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3568 (3d Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a final decree in favor of the libelant in a suit in admiralty brought to recover for damages to. a vessel. The trial court found; first, that the respondent Albert Dulinski was negligent in the operation of his vessel “BIG JIM II”; second, that this negligence was solely the proximate cause of extensive damage to the vessel “SEA QUEEN”, owned by the libelant; and third, that the libelant had suffered damages and losses in the total amount of $37,925.45.

The respondent here challenges these factual findings as unsupported by the evidence and clearly erroneous. We do not agree. We have examined the record in its entirety and, applying the rule announced by the Supreme Court in McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 20, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20 (1954), we find no error. The factual findings are amply supported by evidence which the trial court apparently found credible.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a final decree in favor of the libelant in a suit in admiralty brought to recover for damages to. a vessel. The trial court found; first, that the respondent Albert Dulinski was negligent in the operation of his vessel “BIG JIM II”; second, that this negligence was solely the proximate cause of extensive damage to the vessel “SEA QUEEN”, owned by the libelant; and third, that the libelant had suffered damages and losses in the total amount of $37,925.45.

The respondent here challenges these factual findings as unsupported by the evidence and clearly erroneous. We do not agree. We have examined the record in its entirety and, applying the rule announced by the Supreme Court in McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 20, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20 (1954), we find no error. The factual findings are amply supported by evidence which the trial court apparently found credible.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 F.2d 735, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowe-v-fishing-vessel-big-jim-ii-ca3-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack