Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Campbell Industries

Ninth Circuit

Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Campbell Industries

806 F.2d 898, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 37364

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 16, 1986

DocketNo. 85-6157

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 806 F.2d 898 (Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Campbell Industries) 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.

Bluebook

Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Campbell Industries, 806 F.2d 898, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 37364 (9th Cir. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

The opinion filed in this case on August 5, 1986, 796 F.2d 291, is amended as follows:

A footnote is added at p. 292,1st col. line 7 from bottom of text, after “defendants.” and before “Only the amount”. The note reads:

2. In the original action, Southwest Marine alleged that National Steel and Triple “A” conspired with others to deny Southwest Marine access to the dry dock and sought damages against both. Although the actual assignment of the right to use the dry dock was made by National Steel, we found that it was the defendants collectively, including Triple “A”, who decided to permit Southwest Marine to use the facility. 732 F.2d at 747. In short, it was the defendants collectively, including Triple “A”, who, as a result of Southwest Marine’s prosecution of its action, removed the allegedly unlawful obstacle to Southwest Marine’s enjoyment of its claimed rights. For that reason, we held in our earlier opinion that Southwest Marine had [899]*899prevailed against Triple “A” as well as National Strel.

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

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

The opinion filed in this case on August 5, 1986, 796 F.2d 291, is amended as follows:

A footnote is added at p. 292,1st col. line 7 from bottom of text, after “defendants.” and before “Only the amount”. The note reads:

2. In the original action, Southwest Marine alleged that National Steel and Triple “A” conspired with others to deny Southwest Marine access to the dry dock and sought damages against both. Although the actual assignment of the right to use the dry dock was made by National Steel, we found that it was the defendants collectively, including Triple “A”, who decided to permit Southwest Marine to use the facility. 732 F.2d at 747. In short, it was the defendants collectively, including Triple “A”, who, as a result of Southwest Marine’s prosecution of its action, removed the allegedly unlawful obstacle to Southwest Marine’s enjoyment of its claimed rights. For that reason, we held in our earlier opinion that Southwest Marine had [899]*899prevailed against Triple “A” as well as National Strel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

806 F.2d 898, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 37364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southwest-marine-inc-v-campbell-industries-ca9-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack