Bjornsson v. U.S. Dominator, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that 21 “[w]ithout a written contract, [the plaintiff’s] employment agreement regarding his 22 services aboard the [fishing vessel] is contrary to law, and thus, void pursuant to section 23 11107”
• holding that 21 “[w]ithout a written contract, [the plaintiff’s] employment agreement regarding his 22 services aboard the [fishing vessel] is contrary to law, and thus, void pursuant to section 23 11107”
• the very point of 46 U.S.C. § 10601 is to avoid later misunderstandings and differing interpretations among the parties regarding the terms of employment; custom may be considered to interpret the writing only where the writing is ambiguous
• the very point of 46 U.S.C. § 10601 is to avoid later misunderstandings and differing interpretations among the parties regarding the terms of employment; custom may be considered to interpret the writing only where the writing is ambiguous

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).