1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 177 F.Supp.
  5. 177 F.Supp. 610 (1959)
 

AFRAN TRANSPORT COMPANY v. NATIONAL MARITIME UNION

177 F.Supp. 610 (1959)

AFRAN TRANSPORT COMPANY, Calendar Navigation Corp., California Transport Corporation, Carib Marine Company, Grand Bassa Tankers, Inc., Hemisphere Transportation Corporation, Kupan Transport Company, Mobil Tankers Company, S.A., Norness Shipping Company, Inc., Panama Transport Company, Seatankers, Inc., Tanker Transport, Inc., Theater Navigation Corp., Transatlantic Navigation Corporation and Universe Tankships, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL MARITIME UNION, an unincorporated association, Seafarers International Union of North America, an unincorporated association, Joseph Curran, individually and as an officer and member representative of all the members of the National Maritime Union, and Joseph Algina, individually and as an officer and member representative of all the members of the Seafarers International Union of North America, Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

June 8, 1959.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Maclay, Morgan & Williams, New York City, for plaintiffs. C. Dickerman Williams, Hugh S. Williamson, Granville Whittlesey, New York City, of counsel.

Cooper, Ostrin & DeVarco, New York City, for defendants National Maritime Union and Joseph Curran. Herman E. Cooper, H. Howard Ostrin, George A. Nicolau, Eugene N. Sosnoff, New York City, of counsel.

Seymour W. Miller, Brooklyn, N. Y., for defendants Seafarers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO and Joseph Algina. Seymour W. Miller, William Feldesman, Brooklyn, N. Y., Milton Horowitz, New York City, Ralph P. Katz, Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel.

Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, New York City, for Republic of Panama, amicus curiae. Leonard J. Matteson, J. Bond Smith, Jr., New York City, of counsel.

Burlingham, Hupper & Kennedy, New York City, for Republic of Liberia, amicus curiae.

FREDERICK van PELT BRYAN, District Judge.

Defendants' motion for reargument is granted.

On reargument I have considered the defendants' contentions that their motion for summary judgment, which I denied in my decision of February 20, 1959, should have been granted. It is the burden of the party who moves for summary judgment to establish that there are no material issues of fact which require a trial. I am not persuaded that the defendants have met that burden...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases