Opinion ID: 78542
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substantive Maritime Law Controls This Case

Text: The federal courts have primary jurisdiction of maritime issues. [9] To determine whether a contract falls within maritime jurisdiction we look to the subject-matter, the nature and character of the contract ... the true criterion being the nature of the contract, as to whether it have reference to maritime service or maritime transactions. N. Pac. S.S. Co. v. Hall Bros. Marine Ry. & Shipbuilding Co., 249 U.S. 119, 125, 39 S.Ct. 221, 223, 63 L.Ed. 510 (1919). In Hall Brothers the Supreme Court held that an agreement to repair a ship, even though on a dry dock, was a maritime contract. Id. at 129, 39 S.Ct. at 224. In sum, we look to whether the substance of the contract at issue in the disputewithout regard to the identity of the partiesis reasonably necessary to the conduct of maritime commerce. Ambassador Factors v. Rhein-, Maas-, Und See-Schiffahrtskontor GmBH, 105 F.3d 1397, 1399 (11th Cir.1997) (footnote omitted). The primary objective of the contract between Norfolk and Misener was dredging a navigable waterway in a port that services international and national commerce. There is no doubt that the work contracted for and performed by Norfolk had a direct effect on maritime services and commerce. Further, the Supreme Court has previously held that dredging is traditionally a maritime activity. [10] Norfolk's dredging contract, and the dispute arising therefrom, falls within the federal courts' maritime jurisdiction. [11] With admiralty jurisdiction comes the application of substantive admiralty law. E. River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858, 864, 106 S.Ct. 2295, 2298-99, 90 L.Ed.2d 865 (1986). Drawn from state and federal sources, the general maritime law is an amalgam of traditional common-law rules, modifications of those rules, and newly created rules. Id. at 864-65, 106 S.Ct. at 2299 (footnote omitted). While Congress is empowered to pass laws regarding maritime activities, a large part of the body of substantive maritime law has arisen from common law principles of the Supreme Court. Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 310, 314, 75 S.Ct. 368, 370, 99 L.Ed. 337 (1955). And States can no more override such judicial rules validly fashioned than they can override Acts of Congress. Id.