Garrett v. Moore-Mccormack Co., 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 the statute must be liberally construed to carry out its full purpose, which was to enlarge admiralty’s protection to its wards
• holding that state burden-of-proof rule was not a “mere incident of form of procedure” and denied admiralty plaintiff “the benefit of the full scope of [federally created] rights”
• recognizing “[o]ur historic national policy, both legislative and judicial” directed to the safeguarding of seamen’s rights
• holding, in the context of a complete relinquishment of rights, that the burden of showing a release was knowing and voluntary lies on the seaman's counterparty
• holding, in the context of a complete relinquishment of rights, that the burden of showing a release was knowing and voluntary lies on the seaman's counterparty
• holding releases under the Jones Act to be governed exclusively by federal law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).