Admiralty law or maritime law is a body of law that governs nautical issues and private maritime disputes. Admiralty law consists of both domestic law on maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private parties operating or using ocean-going ships. While each legal jurisdiction usually has its own legislation governing maritime matters, the international nature of the topic and the need for uniformity has, since 1900, led to considerable international maritime law developments, including numerous multilateral treaties.
A writ of mandamus is a judicial remedy in the English and American common law system consisting of a court order that commands a government official or entity to perform an act it is legally required to perform as part of its official duties, or to refrain from performing an act the law forbids it from doing. Writs of mandamus are usually used in situations where a government official has failed to act as legally required or has taken a legally prohibited action. Decisions that fall within the discretionary power of public officials can not be controlled by the writ. For example, mandamus can not force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made. If the court refuses to rule one way or the other, then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court. Alabama sought to prevent the NAACP from conducting further business in the state. After the circuit court issued a restraining order, the state issued a subpoena for various records, including the NAACP's membership lists. The Supreme Court ruled that Alabama's demand for the lists had violated the right of due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Wrongful death is a type of legal claim or cause of action against a person who can be held liable for a death. The claim is brought in a civil action, usually by close relatives, as authorized by statute. In wrongful death cases, survivors are compensated for the harm and losses they have suffered after losing a loved one.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), was a landmark criminal case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that arbitrary and inconsistent imposition of the death penalty violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. It was a per curiam decision. Five justices each wrote separately in support of the decision. Although the justices did not rule that the death penalty was unconstitutional, the Furman decision invalidated the death sentences of nearly 700 people. The decision mandated a degree of consistency in the application of the death penalty. This case resulted in a de facto moratorium of capital punishment throughout the United States. Dozens of states rewrote their death penalty laws, most of which were upheld in the 1976 case Gregg v. Georgia.
A writ of coram nobis is a legal order allowing a court to correct its original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error that did not appear in the records of the original judgment's proceedings and that would have prevented the judgment from being pronounced.
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 is a United States federal statute that provides for the promotion and maintenance of the American merchant marine. Among other purposes, the law regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports. Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act is known as the Jones Act and deals with cabotage. It requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on ships that have been constructed in the United States and that fly the U.S. flag, are owned by U.S. citizens, and are crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents. The act was introduced by Senator Wesley Jones. The law also defines certain seaman's rights.
Disgorgement is the act of giving up something on demand or by legal compulsion, for example giving up profits that were obtained illegally.
Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court limited the scope of the Texas Healthcare Liability Act (THCLA). The effective result of this decision was that the THCLA, which held Case Management and Utilization Review decisions by Managed Care entities like CIGNA and Aetna to a legal duty of care according to the laws of The State of Texas could not be enforced in the case of Health Benefit plans provided through private employers, because the Texas statute allowed compensatory or punitive damages to redress losses or deter future transgressions, which were not available under ERISA § 1132. The ruling still allows the State of Texas to enforce the THCLA in the case of Government-sponsored (Medicare, Medicaid, Federal, State, Municipal Employee, etc., Church-sponsored, or Individual Health Plan Policies, which are saved from preemption by ERISA. The history that allows these Private and Self-Pay Insurance to be saved dates to the "Interstate Commerce" power that was given the federal Government by the Supreme Court. ERISA, enacted in 1974, relied on the "Interstate Commerce" rule to allow federal jurisdiction over private employers, based on the need of private employers to follow a single set of paperwork and rules for pensions and other employee benefit plans where employers had employees in multiple states. Except for private employer plans, insurance can be regulated by the individual states, and Managed Care entities making medical decisions can be held accountable for those decisions if negligence is involved, as allowed by the Texas Healthcare Liability Act.
In United States law, a federal enclave is a parcel of federal property within a state considered under the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States. These enclaves are used for the many different functions of the U.S. federal government including post offices, arsenals, dams, road, etc.; many are usually owned, secured, and administered by the U.S. federal government itself. The U.S., in many cases, has also received similar jurisdictional authority over privately owned properties which it leases, as well as privately owned and occupied properties which are located within the exterior boundaries of a large area which a state has ceded jurisdiction to.
Admiralty law in the United States is a matter of federal law.
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court case in which a sharply divided Court held that the plaintiff, whom the local police chief had named an "active shoplifter," suffered no deprivation of liberty resulting from injury to his reputation. In the case, the court broke from precedents and restricted the definition of the constitutional right to privacy "to matters relating to 'marriage procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education".
Tolling is a legal doctrine that allows for the pausing or delaying of the running of the period of time set forth by a statute of limitations, such that a lawsuit may potentially be filed even after the statute of limitations has run. Although grounds for tolling the statute of limitations vary by jurisdiction, common grounds include:
The status of a seaman in admiralty law provides maritime workers with protections such as payment of wages, working conditions, and remedies for workplace injuries under the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, and the doctrines of "unseaworthiness" and "maintenance and cure". Each of these remedies have the same criteria for the status of "seaman". Having the status of "seaman" provides maritime employees with benefits that are not available to those without the status. However, the determination of who is a "seaman" is complex.
The Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) is a United States admiralty law enacted by the United States Congress in 1920. The Act functions as a wrongful death statute, providing a cause of action for surviving family members when an individual dies as a result of a wrongful act or disaster in international waters. These individuals may make a civil claim for damages against the "person or vessel responsible" for the wrongful or negligent act that caused the death. DOHSA also applies to negligent acts causing death that occur after the initial accident, if the decedent was on the high seas at the time the negligence began. Though DOHSA is generally the exclusive remedy available for certain wrongful death claims under maritime law, surviving relatives may make concurrent claims under DOHSA and the Jones Act in some circumstances.
In United States maritime law, the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, codified as 46 U.S.C. § 30523 since December 2022, states that the owner of a vessel may limit damage claims to the value of the vessel at the end of the voyage plus "pending freight", as long as the owner can prove it lacked knowledge of the problem beforehand. This Act was the subject of a 2001 United States Supreme Court case in Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc.
Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148 (1964), was a Supreme Court case that held that pre-trial appeals may be made on non-final issues if the trial judge, in his discretion, certifies a question of controlling law to the appellate court and the appellate court allows the appeal.
Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case where the majority ruling, written by Justice Harlan, asserted that the burden of showing a lack of factual controversy rests upon the party asserting the summary judgment. It was later challenged by Celotex Corp. v. Catrett (1986), but the case was not officially overruled. While the issue before the Supreme Court was a fairly technical matter, the subject matter regarded the violation of white teacher Sandra Adickes' civil rights in the segregated South, after being refused service at a restaurant because she wished to eat with her black students.
Atlantic Marine Construction Co., Inc. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, 571 U.S. 49 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision dealing with the enforcement of forum selection clauses.
Norfolk Shipbuilding Drydock Corporation v. Garris, 532 U.S. 811 (2001), is a Supreme Court case addressing whether the a cause of action for negligence exists under maritime law.
