U.S v. Campbell, 116 F.3d 478 (5th Cir. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
U.S v. Campbell, 116 F.3d 478 (5th Cir. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
46 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Galloway v. Moran Towing of Lake Charles L L C (lawd, 2021-05-03)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Galloway v. Moran Towing of Lake Charles L L C
W.D. La. · 2021 · confidence medium
It logically follows that, “when a particular medical procedure is merely palliative in nature or serves only to relieve pain and suffering, no duty to provide payments for cure exists.” Johnston v. Tidewater Marine Serv., 116 F.3d 478, at *2 (5th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) 1 Maintenance is a daily stipend for living expenses; cure is the payment of medical expenses.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Durbin v. Marquette Transportation Company, LLC
W.D. Ky. · 2021 · confidence medium
“Thus, where it appears that the seaman's condition is incurable, or that future treatment will merely relieve pain and suffering but not otherwise improve the seaman's physical condition, it is proper to declare that the point of maximum cure has been achieved.” Id. at 796, n.10. “[W]hen a particular medical procedure is merely palliative in nature or serves only to relieve pain and suffering, no duty to provide payments for cure exists.” Barto, 801 F.3d at 476 (quoting Johnston v. Tidewater Marine Serv., 116 F.3d 478, at *2 (5th Cir. 1997)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mark Barto v. J. Ray McDermott Intl Vessels
5th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
It logically follows that, “when a. particular medical procedure is merely palliative in nature or serves only to relieve pain and suffering, no duty to provide payments for cure exists.” Johnston v. Tidewater Marine Serv., 116 F.3d 478, at *2 (5th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (unpublished table opinion).
discussed Cited "see" Ellis v. Walmart Inc
W.D. La. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Simmons v. Lesikar, 116 F. 3d 478 (5th Cir. 1997) (affirming a lower court’s granting of summary judgment which dismissed the plaintiff’s case, noting that “there is no obligation on the court to grant delays, and the time for response under the local rules had run before the court acted.”). likewise failed to file an opposition to the Motion within the 21-day period set forth in Local Rule 7.5.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
U.S
v.
Campbell
96-10486.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Apr 25, 1997.
116 F.3d 478
Unpublished

116 F.3d 478

U.S.
v.
Campbell

NO. 96-10486

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

Apr 22, 1997

Appeal From: N.D.Tex. ,No.7:93CR010X

1

Dismissed.