Complaint of Port Arthur Towing Co. on Behalf of M/V Miss Carolyn

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “a ‘claimant’ in this context includes a codefendant who is asserting a cross claim for indemnification, costs, and attorneys’ fees”
• stating that when the shipowner is not exposed to liability beyond the limitation fund the savings to suitors clause controls
• finding that a claimant within the Limitation Act includes a co-defendant asserting a crossclaim for indemnity, costs, and attorneys’ fees
• “[W]eighing conflicting evidence and inference and determining the relative credibility of witnesses to resolve factual disputes is the [factfinder’s] prov- inee.” (alteration in original) (quoting Turnage v. Gen. Elec. Co., 953 F.2d 206, 207 (5th Cir. 1992))
• “Clearly, then, the trial court would have abused its discretion had it lifted its earlier order staying [a claimant’s] state court proceeding.”
• “A limitation proceeding generally comprises a two-step process, the first being ‘the establishment of liability of the shipowner to the claimant, as to which the claimant (or libellant) bears the burden.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).