Aurora Maritime Co. And Medmar, Inc. v. Abdullah Mohamed Fahem & Co., the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, Garnishee-Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that maritime attachment under Supplemental Admiralty Rule B constitutes a \characteristic feature\ of admiralty law under American Dredging
• “On January 26, 1994, Aurora served [the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited] [“HSBC”] with supplemental process of maritime attachment and garnishment under Rule B and attached Fahem’s account with HSBC.”
• “[I]n light of the mobility of maritime defendants and their capital, permitting [state law] to trump Rule B attachments would undermine a rule upon which maritime actors rely....” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[I]n light of the mobility of maritime defendants and their capital, permitting [state 2 law] to trump Rule B attachments would undermine a rule upon which maritime actors rely . . . .” 3 (internal quotation marks omitted)
• stressing the importance of “consistent nationwide application of Rule B”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).