October Term 2000 · Docket 00-346
Does maritime negligence law cover vessel operations?
The dispute centers on whether a new maritime negligence theory applies to shipbuilding cases.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. O'Donnell addressed the vessel negligence theory. He noted Justice O'Connor's inquiry about its procedural history.
Mr. Ferrini raised points regarding the new maritime law. Mr. O'Donnell responded to these specific legal arguments.
Chief Justice Rehnquist concluded the oral argument. The case is now submitted for decision.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 15-17
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of maritime negligence law. It asks if vessel negligence claims fit within existing legal frameworks.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-47
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 18, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 15-17
What each side wants
Mr. Ferrini wants the Court to recognize the new maritime negligence theory.
Mr. O'Donnell wants the Court to reject the new maritime negligence theory.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-47
What each side says
Mr. Ferrini argues that vessel negligence is a valid legal claim.
Mr. O'Donnell argues that vessel negligence was not properly raised below.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-47
What the justices asked
Justice O'Connor asked whether the vessel negligence theory was raised in lower courts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 15-17
Why it matters
This case defines the boundaries of maritime negligence law. It clarifies which claims shipbuilders can face in court.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-47
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 15-17
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-47
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.