One of the most significant cases in maritime law the last few years is the Fane Lozman v. The City of Riviera Beach, Florida. This case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court and brought forth the issue of what is a vessel and what is not. Mr. Lozman owned a floating home which he brought to a marina owned by the city of Riviera beach. After being pursued by the city for not complying with paying docking fees, the city took a federal admiralty lawsuit against him. The City looked for compensation for their docking fee's and for damages for trespass. The court ruled in favor of the city and made Mr. Lozman pay the fees. Unhappy with this decision, he then filed a complaint to the District Court of Southern Florida (Lozman).
The District court then rejected his claim for lack of admiralty jurisdiction and found the home was considered a vessel under the Rules of Construction Act: 1 U.S.C. §3. 1 U.S.C. §3 states the word "vessel" includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water (Fisher). He was charged with $3,039.88 for dockage and a $1 fee in nominal damages for trespass. The District Court ordered the floating home be sold. The City bought the home at a public auction and had it destroyed (Fisher). A dissatisfied Lozman pursued Supreme Court action and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed and granted certiorari. This case is significant because there are so many floating structures on the water today and there was never a legal determination by the Supreme Court, which would establish the overriding law of the land, of what is a vessel and what is not. This comes in to play with taxes, insurance and ...
... middle of paper ...
...t made the definition a little less vague and will hopefully help lower courts in their decisions. Not to mention it will possibly impact boat owners and those who own structures on water.
Works Cited
De La Rose v. St Charles Gaming Co. 474 F.3d 185. United States Court of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit 2006. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 2013
Fisher, Jeffery L., Petitoner. "Lozman v. The City of Riviera Beach." Google Scholar. United States Supreme Court, n.d. Web. 2013
Lozman v. The City of Riviera Beach. 133 S.Ct. 735. Supreme Court of The United States 2013. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 2013
Stewart v. Dutra. 543 U.S. 481. Supreme Court of The United States 2005. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 2013
The Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (LHWCA). Compliance Assistance By Law - The Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (LHWCA). N.p., n.d. Web. 2013.
Palmer v. Mulligan (1805), resembled the case of Merritt v. Parker (1795), however with a different outcome. In Palmer v. Mulligan, Palmer was suing Mulligan to damages caused by his mill. Palmer’s mill burnt down and Mulligan built a new mill up river, so Palmer had to rebuild his mill further into the river in order to get enough water flow, this caused Parker to loose logs that were floating down river and he had to hire more labor to ensue this didn’t happen. Since Mulligan’s mill was upriver trash from his mill was floating down river and hitting Palmer’s mill causing damage. The court found in favor of Mulligan saying that Palmer’s problems were his own because Mulligan was not altering the flow of the river in any way, and that the “injuries” to his mill were being caused by the natural flow of the river and it was nearly ‘slight inconveniences’. (Palmer v. Mulligan 3 Cai. R. 307; 1805 N.Y. Lexis 343). This case showed the shift in favor to competition and the idea that competition was a good thing. It also demonstrated that not all interference with property would have been compensated. The law shifted to favor competition over prior appropriation. The law shifted from “sic utere” to “salus populi” reflecting that the welfare of the people should be the supreme of the law. (Salyer). It was seen that the people
"Key Supreme Court Cases: Schenck v. United States - American Bar ..." 2011. 14 Jan. 2014
" Schenck v. United States. Chicago-kent College of law , n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2014.
Wagner, F. D. (2010). McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.. Supreme Court of the United States, 1, 1-214. Retrieved May 4, 2014, from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
?Walz v. Tax Commission of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664.? FindLaw for Legal
Name & citation of case: Urban v. Jefferson County School District R-1, 870 F. Supp. 1558 (D. CO 1994)
Vbansal. “The Effects of Dred Scott V. Sanford.” Associated Content. 06 August 2007. 26 May 2010.
... Others believe that courts must be more active and open to expand the ideas of liberty, even if it is required to strike down the majoritarian law in order to protect the minority group from government interference. As with all Supreme Court cases, the meaning of the Lawrence v. Texas will deepen when in the process of its interpretation as well when it is cited by the lower state courts and the Supreme Court itself. In any situation, the decision in the case contains the brave declaration of the dignity and freedom of choice of all homosexual individuals.
BOWERS V. HARDWICK, 478 U. S. 186 :: Volume 478 :: 1986 :: Full Text." US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. .
O' Connor, Sandra D. "Boos v. Barry." 22 March 1988. World Wide Web. 3 March 2001.
State V. Fisher. Wisconsin Supreme Court. 17 May 2006. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 04 May 2014. .
"Summary of United States V. Emerson." FindLaw: Cases and Codes. Thomson Reuters. Web. 29 May 2010. .
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
BLOODSWORTH v. STATE, 76 Md. App. 23 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland July 8, 1988).