Seawinds, Ltd. v. Nedlloyd Lines
This text of 846 F.2d 586 (Seawinds, Ltd. v. Nedlloyd Lines) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1988 A.M.C. 2704
SEAWINDS, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NEDLLOYD LINES, B.V.; Royal Nedlloyd Group, N.V.; KNSM
Lines, B.V.; American President Companies, Ltd.; American
President Lines, Ltd. Sea-Land Corporation; Sea-Land
Service, Inc.; Dampskibsselskabet AF 1912 A/S; A/S
Dampskibsselskabet Svendborg; A.P. Moller-Maersk Line;
Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft; Intercontinental Transport
(ICT) B.V., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 87-2363.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 14, 1988.
Decided May 16, 1988.
Thomas R. Fahrner, Michele C. Jackson, Michael R. Hudson (Furth, Fahrner, Bluemle & Mason), San Francisco, Cal., for Seawinds, Ltd.
M. Laurence Popofsky, Peter A. Wald, Andrea G. Asaro (Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe) and Charles S. Donovan (Walsh, Donovan, Lindh & Keech), San Francisco, Cal., for Nedlloyd Lines, B.V., Royal Nedlloyd Group, N.V. and KNSM Lines, B.V.
William I. Edlund, Walter R. Allan, John F. McLean (Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro), San Francisco, Cal., for American President Companies, Ltd. and American President Lines, Ltd.
Terry M. Gordon (Lasky, Haas, Cohler & Munter), San Francisco, Cal., and Robert S. Zuckerman, for Sea-Land Service, Inc.
Stanley O. Sher, Marc J. Fink, Kelly A. Knight (Dow, Lohnes & Albertson), Washington, D.C., and Gary S. Anderson (Farella, Braun & Martel), San Francisco, Cal., for A.P. Moller-Maersk Line, Hapag-Lloyd A.G., Dampskibsselskabet AF 1912 A/S and A/S Dampskibsselskabet Svenborg.
Nathan Lane III, Ralph M. Pais, James B. Nebel (Graham & James), San Francisco, Cal., for Intercontinental Transport (ICT) B.V.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before GOODWIN, SCHROEDER and POOLE, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
The judgment of the district court is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in its opinion. See Seawinds Ltd. v. Nedlloyd Lines, B.V., 80 B.R. 181 (N.D.Cal.1987).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
846 F.2d 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seawinds-ltd-v-nedlloyd-lines-ca9-1988.