2014bepress Legal RepositoryOpen access

Throwing Admiralty Jurisdiction a Lifevest: Preserving Maritime Jurisdiction for Torts That Do Not Involve Vessels

Monica Thoele

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

This Note examines the current test for establishing admiralty jurisdiction for in personam tort suits and the lower courts’ recent departure from this test. Some lower courts have started to inappropriately read a vessel requirement into the test. This requirement causes a host of problems, including upsetting the spirit of the Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction Act of 1948, forcing judges to decide issues of fact at the outset of litigation, and inadequately upholding admiralty jurisdiction’s purpose of protecting maritime commerce. The best solution to this problem would be for Congress to pass a new admiralty jurisdiction statute that incorporates the 1948 Act and the Supreme Court’s current test for admiralty jurisdiction, and explicitly states that a vessel’s involvement is not required to establish admiralty jurisdiction.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This Note examines the current test for establishing admiralty jurisdiction for in personam tort suits and the lower courts’ recent departure from this test. Some lower courts have started to inappropriately read a vessel requirement into the test. This requirement causes a host of problems, including upsetting the spirit of the Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction Act of 1948, forcing judges to decide issues of fact at the outset of litigation, and inadequately upholding admiralty jurisdiction’s purpose of protecting maritime commerce. The best solution to this problem would be for Congress to pass a new admiralty jurisdiction statute that incorporates the 1948 Act and the Supreme Court’s current test for admiralty jurisdiction, and explicitly states that a vessel’s involvement is not required to establish admiralty jurisdiction.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This Note examines the current test for establishing admiralty jurisdiction for in personam tort suits and the lower courts’ recent departure from this test. Some lower courts have started to inappropriately read a vessel requirement into the test. This requirement causes a host of problems, including upsetting the spirit of the Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction Act of 1948, forcing judges to decide issues of fact at the outset of litigation, and inadequately upholding admiralty jurisdiction’s purpose of protecting maritime commerce. The best solution to this problem would be for Congress to pass a new admiralty jurisdiction statute that incorporates the 1948 Act and the Supreme Court’s current test for admiralty jurisdiction, and explicitly states that a vessel’s involvement is not required to establish admiralty jurisdiction.

Key concepts: Jurisdiction, Law, Tort, Element (criminal law), Exclusive jurisdiction, Federal jurisdiction, Supreme court, Political science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Throwing Admiralty Jurisdiction a Lifevest: Preserving Maritime Jurisdiction for Torts That Do Not Involve Vessels — Research Paper | ScholarLens