McCarthy v. Central Dredging Co.
Citations
- 191 F. 670
- 1911 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129
Syllabus
<p>Shipping (§ 76*) — Contracts—Action for Breach — Evidence op Terms.</p> <p>Evidence considered, and held to sustain tbe allegations of libelants that they were employed by respondent as professional divers at a per diem compensation, to render services in examining and repairing a sunken scow, to put her in a condition to he raised, and not to sustain the contention of respondent that they performed the work in such negligent manner as to defeat their right to recover therefor and render them liable in damages.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Shipping, Dec. Dig. § 76.*]</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[t]he exceptions to Za Mar, however, (conspiracy or juridical links) should apply to defendant class certification as they do to plaintiff class certification”
- “class treatment is not proper unless each plaintiff class representative has a cause of action against each defendant, even though the plaintiffs were all injured by a method of dealing common to all defendants”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Hazel
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.