Supreme Court of the United States, 1955

Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided April 11, 1955 · Consideration, Took

349 U.S. 901; 75 S. Ct. 575 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Sidney A. Schwartz argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Edward Ash., Edward J. Behrens argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Charles H. Lawson. By special leave of Court, 348 U. S. 948, Leavenworth Colby argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Burger, Paul A. Sweeney and Herman Marcuse.

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision. The 11 that cite it most often are listed here.

New Richmond News v. City of New Richmond (Wis. 2015)
Navigazione Alta Italia v. Columbia Casualty Company (5th Cir. 1958)
Powell v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd. (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1972)
Armstrong v. Chambers & Kennedy (District Court, S.D. Texas 1972)
Mickle v. Motor Vessel Henriette Wilhelmine Schulte (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1960)
O/Y Finlayson-Forssa A/B v. Pan Atlantic Steamship Corporation (5th Cir. 1958)
O/Y Finlayson-Forssa A/B v. Pan Atlantic Steamship Corp. (5th Cir. 1958)
Curtis v. A. Garcia y Cia., Ltda. (3d Cir. 1957)
American President Lines, Ltd., a Corporation v. Marine Terminals Corp., a Corporation (9th Cir. 1956)
Pennsylvania Railroad v. McAllister Bros. (District Court, S.D. New York 1956)
Pioneer Steamship Company v. Walter E. Hill (6th Cir. 1955)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

*901Certiorari, 348 U. S. 813, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Per Curiam:

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.