In The
Supreme Court of the United States
JEROME B. GRAUBART INC.
v.
GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK COMPANY
Decided February 22, 1995
Justice O’Connor, Concurring
Topic: Judicial Power* | Court vote: 7–0 | |
Joining O'Connor opinion: No other Justices joined this opinion. | ||
Citation: 513 U.S. 527 | Docket: 93–762 | Audio: Listen to this case's oral arguments at Oyez |
* As categorized by the Washington University Law Supreme Court Database
DISCLAIMER: Only United States Reports are legally valid sources for Supreme Court opinions. The text below is provided for ease of access only. If you need to cite the exact text of this opinion or if you would like to view the opinions of the other Justices in this case, please view the original United States Report at Justia. The Sandra Day O'Connor Institute does not in any way represent, warrant, or guarantee that the text below is accurate."
Opinion
JUSTICE O'CONNOR, concurring.
I concur in the Court's judgment and opinion. The Court properly holds that, when a court is faced with a case involving multiple tortfeasors, some of whom may not be maritime actors, if one of the putative tortfeasors was engaged in traditional maritime activity alleged to have proximately caused the incident, then the supposedly wrongful activity "involves" traditional maritime activity. The possible involvement of other, nonmaritime parties does not affect the jurisdictional inquiry as to the maritime party. Ante, at 541. I do not, however, understand the Court's opinion to suggest that, having found admiralty jurisdiction over a particular claim against a particular party, a court must then exercise admiralty jurisdiction over all the claims and parties involved in the case. Rather, the court should engage in the usual supplemental jurisdiction and impleader inquiries. See 28 U. S. C. § 1367 (1988 ed., Supp. V); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 14; see also ante, at 531. I find nothing in the Court's opinion to the contrary.
Header photo: United States Supreme Court. Credit: Patrick McKay / Flickr - CC.