Nita Plaisance & Norman Plaisance v. Romanda Sue, Inc., 861 F.2d 858 (5th Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Nita Plaisance & Norman Plaisance v. Romanda Sue, Inc., 861 F.2d 858 (5th Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest negative: Bommarito v. Belle Chasse Marine Trans (ca5, 2025-11-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Bommarito v. Belle Chasse Marine Trans
5th Cir. · 2025 · signal: but cf. · confidence high
Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 409 U.S. 249, 255 (1972). 9 See Alaska Steamship Co. v. Petterson, 347 U.S. 396, 396 (1954) (affirming per curiam a Ninth Circuit opinion, 205 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1953), allowing seaworthiness recovery to stevedore injured by breaking block owned and brought on board by stevedoring company); see also Rogers v. U.S. Lines, 347 U.S. 984 , 984 (1954) (reversing per curiam a Third Circuit opinion, 205 F.2d 57 (3d Cir. 1953), denying seaworthiness recovery to longshoreman on basis that land fall runner belonging to stevedore was not appurtenant to vesse…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Nita PLAISANCE and Norman Plaisance, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
ROMANDA SUE, INC., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
88-3184.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Dec 15, 1988.
861 F.2d 858
Joseph J. Weigand, Jr. Weigand, Wei-gand & Meyer, Houma, La., for plaintiffs-appellants., Robert N. Habans, Jr., Habans & Bologna, New Orleans, La., for Romanda Sue, Inc., Steven W. Usdin, Wayne Lee, Stone, Pig-man, Walther, Wittman & Hutchinson, New Orleans, La., for Phillips Petroleum Co.
Gee, Williams, Higginbotham.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Appellant complains generally of various claimed errors by the trial court. We agree with the reasoning of its opinion, however; and its findings of fact are not shown to be clearly erroneous — a demonstration not attempted by appellant.

Drachenberg v. Canal Barge Co., Inc., 571 F.2d 912 (5th Cir.1978), does not support appellant’s contention that a mooring cleat which was part of another’s dock should be considered part of ROMANDA SUE, where these were connected by a line only. The marine arm in Drachenberg was firmly affixed to the vessel to such a degree as to have become an integral part of it, and was under common ownership with the vessel. Indeed, Drachenberg itself cites Davis v. W. Bruns & Co., 476 F.2d 246 (5th Cir.1973), holding that a connection by guy wires was insufficient for such purposes.

AFFIRMED.