green
Positive treatment
published
Quoted verbatim 1×
18.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Cited for
At page 1381 Reversing holding on pain and suffering in survival actions3 citing cases
- Stacy C. Gray, Individually & as Surviving Spouse of Lt. Douglas G. Gray, & as Pers. Rep. of Lt. Douglas G. Gray, Deceased v. Lockheed Aeronautical Sys. Co., a Div. of Lockheed Corp., Cross-Appellee. Grace M. Schumacher, Individually & as Surviving Parent of Lt. John T. Hartman, & as Pers. Rep. of Lt. John Hartman, Deceased v. Lockheed Aeronautical Sys. Co., a Div. of Lockheed Corp., Cross-Appellee. Wilma J. Jennings, Individually, & as Surviving Parent of Lt. David S. Jennings, & as Pers. Rep. of Lt. David S. Jennings, Deceased v. Lockheed Aeronautical Sys. Co., a Div. of Lockheed Corp., Cross-Appellee, 155 F.3d 1343 (11th Cir. 1998).publishedCo., 125 F.3d 1371, 1381-86 (11th Cir.1997).
- Gray v. Lockheed Aeronautical Sys. Co., 155 F.3d 1343 (11th Cir. 1998).publishedCo., 125 F.3d 1371, 1381-86 (11th Cir.1997).
- Gray v. Lockheed Aeronautical Sys., 125 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir. 1997).published Co., 125 F.3d 1371, 1381-86 (11th Cir.1997).
At page 1377 cited at this page2 citing cases
- Getz v. Boeing Co., 690 F. Supp. 2d 982 (N.D. Cal. 2010).publishedCo., 125 F.3d 1371, 1377 (11th Cir.1997).
- Arnhold v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 992 S.W.2d 346 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).publishedSee Gray v. Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co., 125 F.3d 1371, 1377 (11th Cir.1997).
At page 1385 cited at this page2 citing cases
- Vo v. Yamaha Golf Car Co., 600 S.E.2d 594 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).published N.Y. 1964). 25 125 F3d 1371 (11th Cir. 1997). 26 Id. at 1385-1386. 27 Gray v. Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co., 155 F3d 1343 (11th Cir. 1998). 28 The Eleventh Circuit concluded that Section 765 of DOHSA was not a survival action provision…
- Dooley v. Korean Air Lines Co., 524 U.S. 116 (1998).publishedCompare, e. g., In re Korean Air Lines Disaster, 117 F. 3d, at 1481 , with Gray v. Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co., 125 F. 3d 1371, 1385 (CA11 1997).
At page 1379 Determining proof of component conformity to specifications1 citing caseThe fact that the Navy ... actually replaced the servo in the crashed S-3 does not prove that the servo conformed to precise, Navy-approved specifications
- Brinson v. Raytheon Co., 571 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2009).published (The fact that the Navy ... actually replaced the servo in the crashed S-3 does not prove that the servo conformed to precise, Navy-approved specifications)
Gray
v.
Lockheed Aeronautical Sys.
v.
Lockheed Aeronautical Sys.
95-8459.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Oct 24, 1997.
Published opinion
125 F.3d 1371
Published
PUBLISH
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________________ FILED No. 95-8459 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 09/25/98 D.C. Docket Nos. 1:91-CV-2399-ODE THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK 1:91-CV-2400-ODE 1:91-CV-2401-ODE
STACY C. GRAY, individually and as Surviving Spouse
of Lt. Douglas G. Gray, and as Personal Representative of
Lt. Douglas G. Gray, deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,
versus
LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY,
a division of Lockheed Corporation,
Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GRACE M. SCHUMACHER, individually and as Surviving
Parent of Lt. John T. Hartman, and as Personal
Representative of Lt. John Hartman, Deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,
versus
LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY,
a division of Lockheed Corporation,
Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILMA J. JENNINGS, individually, and as Surviving Parent
of Lt. David S. Jennings, and as Personal Representative
of Lt. David S. Jennings, Deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,
versus
LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY,
a division of Lockheed Corporation,
Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
(September 25, 1998)
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, and CLARK, Senior Circuit Judge.
[*~1371–1374]IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________________ FILED No. 95-8459 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 09/25/98 D.C. Docket Nos. 1:91-CV-2399-ODE THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK 1:91-CV-2400-ODE 1:91-CV-2401-ODE
STACY C. GRAY, individually and as Surviving Spouse
of Lt. Douglas G. Gray, and as Personal Representative of
Lt. Douglas G. Gray, deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,
versus
LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY,
a division of Lockheed Corporation,
Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GRACE M. SCHUMACHER, individually and as Surviving
Parent of Lt. John T. Hartman, and as Personal
Representative of Lt. John Hartman, Deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,
versus
LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY,
a division of Lockheed Corporation,
Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILMA J. JENNINGS, individually, and as Surviving Parent
of Lt. David S. Jennings, and as Personal Representative
of Lt. David S. Jennings, Deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,
versus
LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY,
a division of Lockheed Corporation,
Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
(September 25, 1998)
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, and CLARK, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This case is before the court on remand from the United States Supreme Court for further consideration of our earlier opinion in light of Dooley v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., 118 S. Ct. 1890 (1998). In accord with the Court’s opinion, we reverse our previous holding that appellees may recover damages for pain and suffering on their survival action claims based on general maritime law in conjunction with the Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U.S.C. App. §§ 761-768. See Gray v. Lockheed Aeronautical Sys. Co., 125 F.3d 1371, 1381-86 (11th Cir. 1997). We affirm the remainder of our decision that does not touch such survival action claims, and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with our decision and Dooley.
[*~1385–1387]REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.