From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Erie Lackawanna R. Co.

U.S.
May 15, 1972
406 U.S. 340 (1972)

Summary

In Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Erie Lackawanna Railroad Co., 406 U.S. 340, 92 S.Ct. 1550, 32 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972), the Court reaffirmed its decision in Halcyon: "We agree that in this noncollision admiralty case the District Court properly dismissed petitioner's third-party complaint for contribution against respondent Erie on the authority of Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Corp., 342 U.S. 282 [72 S.Ct. 277, 96 L.Ed. 318] (1952)."

Summary of this case from Dodge v. Mitsui Shintaku Ginko K. K. Tokyo

Opinion

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

No. 71-107.

Argued April 17-18, 1972 Decided May 15, 1972

442 F.2d 694, affirmed. Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Corp., 342 U.S. 282.

Devereux Milburn argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Louis L. Stanton, Jr., Jerome L. Getz, and Frank G. Kurka.

E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief for respondent Erie Lackawanna Railroad Co. were Timothy J. Bloomfield and Lloyd W. Roberson.


We granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 442 F.2d 694 (1971), affirming the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, 315 F. Supp. 357 (1970). 404 U.S. 909 (1971). We agree that in this noncollision admiralty case the District Court properly dismissed petitioner's third-party complaint for contribution against respondent Erie on the authority of Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Corp., 342 U.S. 282 (1952). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE POWELL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


Summaries of

Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Erie Lackawanna R. Co.

U.S.
May 15, 1972
406 U.S. 340 (1972)

In Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Erie Lackawanna Railroad Co., 406 U.S. 340, 92 S.Ct. 1550, 32 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972), the Court reaffirmed its decision in Halcyon: "We agree that in this noncollision admiralty case the District Court properly dismissed petitioner's third-party complaint for contribution against respondent Erie on the authority of Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Corp., 342 U.S. 282 [72 S.Ct. 277, 96 L.Ed. 318] (1952)."

Summary of this case from Dodge v. Mitsui Shintaku Ginko K. K. Tokyo

In Atlantic Coast Line, the Supreme Court, on the authority of Halcyon, in a short per curiam opinion, held that there was no right of contribution in a case involving injuries to an employee of one railroad who was injured while working on equipment of another railroad.

Summary of this case from Burgess v. M/V Tamano
Case details for

Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Erie Lackawanna R. Co.

Case Details

Full title:ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO. v . ERIE LACKAWANNA RAILROAD CO. ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: May 15, 1972

Citations

406 U.S. 340 (1972)
92 S. Ct. 1550

Citing Cases

Oman v. Johns-Manville Corp.

The Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed its holding in the Halcyon case. See Cooper Stevedoring Co. v.…

Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States

The Court explicitly left open the issue whether such a right to contribution, if it were to exist, would be…