Case Citator › Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp.

Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
342 U.S. 282
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
38 of 38
Citing cases (total)
38
Treatment dates
1974
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Limited by Cooper Stevedoring Co. v. Fritz Kopke, Inc.: Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp. does not bar contribution between maritime tortfeasors merely because the case does not involve a collision. Its bar still applies when the party from whom contribution is sought is the injured worker's employer protected by the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.
More on how this was screened

All 38 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed limitation is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

38 later cases cite Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp.; 38 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Supreme Court confined Halcyon's broad no-contribution language to its setting, permitting contribution between maritime tortfeasors when the party asked to contribute was not the injured worker's protected employer.

    Cooper Stevedoring Co. v. Fritz Kopke, Inc. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Despite the occasional breadth of its dictum, our opinion in Halcyon should be read with this historical backdrop in mind. Viewed from this perspective, and taking into account the factual circumstances presented in that case, we think Halcyon stands for a more limited rule than the absolute bar against contribution in noncollision cases urged upon us by petitioner.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace