Cunningham v. Interlake Steamship Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the district court properly refused to apply the Ohio savings statute to toll the statute of limitations” relative to the plaintiff’s maritime negligence claims
• declining to decide the issue but noting that “a number of federal courts have applied the doctrine of laches in determining the timeliness of claims for maintenance and cure” and collecting cases
• “defendant’s attorney was under no obligation to inform [plaintiff’s] lawyer about the consequences of a voluntary dismissal of his action in state court”
• “maintenance and cure could not withstand [Defendant’s] motion for summary judgment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).