The following are digests and case links to Circuit Court Admiralty Cases that have as an issue maritime attachment:

ContiChem LPG v. Parsons Shipping Co.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
October 11, 2000

Maritime Attachment: plaintiff improperly attempted to circumvent the rule against a Rule B maritime attachment of property not yet in the bank's possession by improperly using a temporary restraining order under state law to prohibit the transfer of funds out of the district before the Rule B attachment could be served, thus the District Court's order vacating the Rule B maritime attachment of those funds was upheld; Arbitration: plaintiff was not entitled to a state law attachment under New York C.P.L.R. 7502(c) since that provision only allows attachment in aid of domestic arbitration and is consequently not available in aid of London arbitration.

Submersible Systems v. Perforadora Central
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
May 4, 2001

Procedure (Personal Jurisdiction): claims falling within the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts are claims "arising under federal law" for the purposes of Rule 4(k)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that "serving a summons or filing a waiver of service is also effective, with respect to claims arising under federal law, to establish personal jurisdiction over the person of any defendant who is not subject to the courts of general jurisdiction of any state"; Rule 4(k)(2) requires a court to consider a defendant's contacts with the United States as a whole, which in this case did not confer personal jurisdiction since the defendant's contacts with the United States were not "continuous and systematic"; Maritime Attachment: the district court was correct in denying  plaintiff's application for a Rule B attachment since plaintiff failed to file an affidavit concerning the presence of the defendant within the district as required by Rule B.