Luckenbach SS Co. v. Lowe, 10501.
| Decision Date | 11 April 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 10501.,10501. |
| Citation | 96 F. Supp. 918 |
| Parties | LUCKENBACH S. S. CO., Inc., et al. v. LOWE et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Conlen, LaBrum & Beechwood, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
James P. McCormick, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Lowe.
Floyd W. Tompkins, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Feinauer.
Plaintiff seeks to set aside an award of death benefits made by the Deputy Commissioner of the United States Employees Compensation Commission, under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq., requesting a trial de novo on the issues of jurisdiction, i. e. the place of the injury and whether there was the masterservant relationship. The Deputy Commissioner moves to dismiss the complaint.
The right to a trial de novo on the jurisdictional facts is claimed under the doctrine of Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 L.Ed. 598. Without lengthy comment on this widely discussed case, the Court has observed that in cases under the Longshoremen's Act, the doctrine has displayed an endurance remarkable in view of its fate in other fields of administrative law. See Schwartz, "Does the Ghost of `Crowell v. Benson' Still Walk?", 98 U. of Pa.L.Rev. 163 (1949). The case has not been specifically overruled by the Supreme Court, cf. Mr. Justice Frankfurter's concurring opinion in Estep v. U. S., 327 U.S. 114, 142, 66 S.Ct. 423, 90 L.Ed. 567; N.L.R.B. v. Hearst Publications, 322 U.S. 111, 64 S.Ct. 851, 88 L. Ed. 1170; and it remains as a strange anachronism under the Longshoremen's Act. Nevertheless, although Crowell v. Benson did construe that Act to empower the district court to try de novo the issues of jurisdictional fact, see Lowe v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 3 Cir., 113 F.2d 413, 414, the Act was not construed to compel the court to do so without the exercise of discretion. Moran v. Lowe, D.C., 52 F.Supp. 39; Larson, "The Doctrine of `Constitutional Fact'", 15 Temple L.Q. 185, 206 (1941). It appears that the evidence upon the so-called questions of jurisdictional fact has been fully and completely presented before the Deputy Commissioner and the plaintiff does not allege that he has new or different evidence to present to the Court; nor does the plaintiff advance any other valid reason why there should be a new record. On the contrary, he merely claims a trial de novo as of right. This Court is unwilling to hear de novo the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martorano v. Hughes
...138 F.2d 867, 868 (2d Cir. 1943); South Chicago Coal & Dock Co. v. Bassett, 104 F.2d 522, 523 (7th Cir. 1939); Luckenbach S.S. Co., Inc. v. Lowe, 96 F.Supp. 918 (E.D.Pa.1951); Moran v. Lowe, 52 F. Supp. 39 (D.N.J.1943); Ford v. Parker, 52 F.Supp. 98, 99 (D.Md.1943); West Kentucky Coal Co. v......
-
Western Boat Bldg. Co. v. O'LEARY
...a trial de novo as a matter of right under circumstances where there is no real issue of fact presented. See Luckenbach S. S. Co., Inc. v. Lowe, D.C.1951, 96 F. Supp. 918, 919. If however, the true rule is contrary to our impression, we simply refuse to invoke it where (as here) no worthwhi......
-
NALCO CHEMICAL CORPORATION v. Shea
...A de novo trial in jurisdictional fact situations was also held to be discretionary with the district court in Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. Lowe, 96 F.Supp. 918 (E.D.Pa.1951). This Court agrees with the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit and holds that the granting of a de novo trial in Longshoremen......
-
Dixon v. Oosting
...afford a trial de novo as a matter of right under circumstances where there is no issue of fact presented. See Luckenbach S.S. Co., Inc., v. Lowe, D.C.1951, 96 F.Supp. 918, 919. If however, the true rule is contrary to our impression, we simply refuse to invoke it where (as here) no worthwh......