- [02/16] BTC Is Awarded 2010 Design-Build Award of Excellence
- [02/16] Trimble's TrimFleet Next Generation Products Offer State-of-the-Art Mobile Computing for the Construction Supply Industry
- [02/16] New home construction up 14.6 pct. in January
- [02/16] Borders files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection
- [02/16] 'Voluntary' immigration program not so voluntary
- [02/15] Obama starts drive for medical malpractice reforms
[02/15] Eitzen Bulk A/S v. Ashapura Minechem, Ltd. In an admiralty action contesting the execution of attached funds, the district court's denial of motion to vacate maritime attachments of electronic fund transfers entered prior to the decision in Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2009) is vacated where the entry of a judgment upholding plaintiff's claim as to liability does not affect the retroactive applicability of Jaldhi where that judgment has not yet been executed against the attached property.
[11/30] Alphamate Commodity GMBH v. CHS Europe SA In plaintiff's appeal from the district court's order vacating a maritime attachment, the order is vacated where the district court lacked maritime jurisdiction over the case because the parties' contracts for sales of grain were not wholly maritime, nor were the demurrage and detention charges suffered by plaintiff severable from the alleged breaches of their sales contracts.
[11/10] Roberts v. Director, OWCP In a petition for review of an Office of Workers Compensation Programs' order partially granting petitioner's request for benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, the petition is granted in part where the ALJ erred by applying the national average weekly wage with respect to fiscal year 2002, rather than fiscal year 2005, in calculating the applicable maximum rate. However, the petition is denied in part where, because petitioner became newly entitled to compensation in fiscal year 2002, the ALJ properly applied the 2002 fiscal year maximum to his compensation for temporary total disability and permanent partial disability.
[11/05] Am. Cargo Transp., Inc. v. US In an action against the Department of State Agency for International Development, alleging a violation of federal cargo preference laws and requesting injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as damages for unjust enrichment, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) claims for injunctive and declaratory relief under 46 C.F.R. section 381.5 were moot because the U.S. adopted plaintiff's position going forward -- that defendant was required to seek Department of Transportation Maritime Administration's concurrence before making a recommendation about the cargo because plaintiff offered to carry a full shipload; and 2) this case did not fall within the exception to sovereign immunity in the Suits in Admiralty Act.
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.