FEDERAL · 28 U.S.C. · Chapter 121
Admiralty and maritime cases
28 U.S.C. § 1873
Title28 — Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Chapter121 — JURIES; TRIAL BY JURY
This text of 28 U.S.C. § 1873 (Admiralty and maritime cases) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
28 U.S.C. § 1873.
Text
In any case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction relating to any matter of contract or tort arising upon or concerning any vessel of twenty tons or upward, enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade, and employed in the business of commerce and navigation between places in different states upon the lakes and navigable waters connecting said lakes, the trial of all issues of fact shall be by jury if either party demands it.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.
358 U.S. 354 (Supreme Court, 1959)
Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc.
364 U.S. 325 (Supreme Court, 1960)
Doucette v. Vincent
194 F.2d 834 (First Circuit, 1952)
Kathleen Troupe v. Chicago, Duluth & Georgian Bay Transit Company
234 F.2d 253 (Second Circuit, 1956)
Leah B. Sibley v. Fulton Dekalb Collection Service
677 F.2d 830 (Eleventh Circuit, 1982)
Standard Oil Company of California v. Arizona, California, Florida, Oregon, and Washington
738 F.2d 1021 (Ninth Circuit, 1984)
Concordia Co. v. Panek
115 F.3d 67 (First Circuit, 1997)
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.
478 F. Supp. 889 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1979)
Blake v. Farrell Lines, Inc.
417 F.2d 264 (Third Circuit, 1969)
McCann v. Falgout Boat Co.
44 F.R.D. 34 (S.D. Texas, 1968)
Jenkins v. Roderick
156 F. Supp. 299 (D. Massachusetts, 1957)
Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Co.
306 F.2d 461 (Second Circuit, 1962)
Close v. Calmar Steamship Corp.
44 F.R.D. 398 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1968)
Miller v. The Sultana
176 F.2d 203 (Second Circuit, 1949)
Nice v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
305 F. Supp. 1167 (W.D. Michigan, 1969)
Ballard v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.
285 F. Supp. 290 (S.D. New York, 1968)
Alvarado v. Santana-Lopez
101 F.R.D. 367 (S.D. New York, 1984)
Ashland Oil v. Third Nat. Bank of Ashland, Ky.
557 F. Supp. 862 (E.D. Kentucky, 1983)
Duhon v. Koch Exploration Co.
628 F. Supp. 925 (W.D. Louisiana, 1986)
Complaint of Great Lakes Towing Company
395 F. Supp. 810 (N.D. Ohio, 1974)
Source Credit
History
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 953.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §770 (R.S. §§566, 648; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §291, 36 Stat. 1167).
Words "and Territories" following words "in different States" were omitted as obsolete. The act of February 26, 1845, ch. 20, 5 Stat. 726, from which this language was derived was intended primarily to cover the Great Lakes regions.
The first sentence of section 770 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., providing generally for the right of jury trials in district courts, was omitted as covered by Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Changes were made in phraseology.
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §770 (R.S. §§566, 648; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §291, 36 Stat. 1167).
Words "and Territories" following words "in different States" were omitted as obsolete. The act of February 26, 1845, ch. 20, 5 Stat. 726, from which this language was derived was intended primarily to cover the Great Lakes regions.
The first sentence of section 770 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., providing generally for the right of jury trials in district courts, was omitted as covered by Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Changes were made in phraseology.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
28 U.S.C. § 1873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/28/1873.