Fane Lozman, Petitioner v. the City of Riviera Beach, Florida (568 U.S. 115)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 15, 2013 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 568 U.S. 115 · 133 S. Ct. 735
- Decided
- January 15, 2013
- Term
- October Term 2012
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. The Rules of Construction Act defines a “vessel” as including “every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.” 1 U. S. C. § 3. The question before us is whether petitioner’s floating home (which is not self-propelled) falls within the terms of that definition. In answering that question we focus primarily upon the phrase “capable of being used.” This term encompasses “practical” possibilities, not “merely . . . theoretical” ones. Stewart v. Dutra Constr. Co., 543 U. S. 481, 496 (2005). We believe that a reasonable observer, looking to the home’s physical characteristics and activities, would not consider it to be designed to any practical degree for carrying people or things on water. And we consequently conclude that the floating home is not a “vessel.” Í—i In 2002 Fane Lozman, petitioner, bought a 60- by 12-foot floating home. App. 37, 71. The home consisted of a house-like .plywood structure with French doors on three sides. Id., at 38, 44. It contained a sitting room, bedroom, closet, bathroom, and kitchen, along with a stairway leading to a second level with office space. Id., at 45-66. An empty bilge space underneath the main floor kept it afloat. Id., at 38. (See Appendix, infra, for a photograph.) After buying the floating home,…
Excerpt of a 26,442-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.