saving to suitors clause in Louisiana

2006In the present case, the plaintiffs, although their case falls within federal admiralty jurisdiction, brought their case in state court pursuant to the savings to suitors clause, designating their suit as a suit in admiralty or a general maritime claim in their original Petition for Damages: "This is an admiralty and maritime claim brought in accordance with the saving-to-suitors clause, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1)." [18] General Maritime Tort Law "As a general proposition, `[a] maritime claim brought in common law state courts ... is governed by the same principles as govern actions brought in admir

2006In the present case, Mr. Dahiya, although his case falls within federal admiralty jurisdiction, brought his case in state court pursuant to the savings to suitors clause, designating his suit as a suit in admiralty or a general maritime claim in his original Petition for Damages: "This case is an admiralty and/or maritime claim brought in state court under the saving to suitors clause and is brought pursuant to Article 1732(6) of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure." "As a general proposition, `[a] maritime claim brought in common law state courts ... is governed by the same principles as go

2006In the present case, the plaintiffs, although their case falls within federal admiralty jurisdiction, brought their case in state court pursuant to the savings to suitors clause, designating their suit as a suit in admiralty or a general maritime claim in their original Petition for Damages: "This is an admiralty and maritime claim brought in accordance with the saving-to-suitors clause, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1)." [18] General Maritime Tort Law "As a general proposition, `[a] maritime claim brought in common law state courts ... is governed by the same principles as govern actions brought in admir

2006In the present case, Mr. Dahiya, although his case falls within federal admiralty jurisdiction, brought his case in state court pursuant to the savings to suitors clause, designating his suit as a suit in admiralty or a general maritime claim in his original Petition for Damages: "This case is an admiralty and/or maritime claim brought in state court under the saving to suitors clause and is brought pursuant to Article 1732(6) of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure." "As a general proposition, `[a] maritime claim brought in common law state courts ... is governed by the same principles as go

2008NOTES [1] The plaintiff originally filed suit in federal court under the Jones Act and general maritime law, but voluntarily transferred the case to state court under the saving-to-suitors clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333 , which allows a person injured in a maritime tort to sue for damages in a state court. [2] Younce v. Pacific Gulf Marine, Inc., 01-546 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/10/02) , 817 So.2d 255 , reversed and remanded, XXXX-XXXX (La. 10/4/02), 827 So.2d 1144 . [3] Younce v. Pacific Gulf Marine, Inc., 04-170 c/w 04-424 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/28/2004) , 883 So.2d 1154 (not designated for publication). [4]

2008NOTES [1] The plaintiff originally filed suit in federal court under the Jones Act and general maritime law, but voluntarily transferred the case to state court under the saving-to-suitors clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333 , which allows a person injured in a maritime tort to sue for damages in a state court. [2] Younce v. Pacific Gulf Marine, Inc., 01-546 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/10/02) , 817 So.2d 255 , reversed and remanded, XXXX-XXXX (La. 10/4/02), 827 So.2d 1144 . [3] Younce v. Pacific Gulf Marine, Inc., 04-170 c/w 04-424 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/28/2004) , 883 So.2d 1154 (not designated for publication). [4]

2008NOTES [1] The plaintiff originally filed suit in federal court under the Jones Act and general maritime law, but voluntarily transferred the case to state court under the saving-to-suitors clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333 , which allows a person injured in a maritime tort to sue for damages in a state court. [2] Younce v. Pacific Gulf Marine, Inc., 01-546 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/10/02) , 817 So.2d 255 , reversed and remanded, XXXX-XXXX (La. 10/4/02), 827 So.2d 1144 . [3] Younce v. Pacific Gulf Marine, Inc., 04-170 c/w 04-424 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/28/2004) , 883 So.2d 1154 (not designated for publication). [4]

2008NOTES [1] The plaintiff originally filed suit in federal court under the Jones Act and general maritime law, but voluntarily transferred the case to state court under the saving-to-suitors clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333 , which allows a person injured in a maritime tort to sue for damages in a state court. [2] Younce v. Pacific Gulf Marine, Inc., 01-546 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/10/02) , 817 So.2d 255 , reversed and remanded, XXXX-XXXX (La. 10/4/02), 827 So.2d 1144 . [3] Younce v. Pacific Gulf Marine, Inc., 04-170 c/w 04-424 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/28/2004) , 883 So.2d 1154 (not designated for publication). [4]

2006In the present case, Mr. Dahiya, although his case falls within federal admiralty jurisdiction, brought his case in state court pursuant to the savings to suitors clause, designating his suit as a suit in admiralty or a general maritime claim in his original Petition for Damages: "This case is an admiralty and/or maritime claim brought in state court under the saving to suitors clause and is brought pursuant to Article 1732(6) of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure." "As a general proposition, `[a] maritime claim brought in common law state courts ... is governed by the same principles as go

1997Langnes, 282 U.S. at 540-41 , 51 S.Ct. at 246-47 , 1931 AMC at 518-19, Signal Oil & Gas Co. v. Barge W-701, [ 1982 AMC 2603, 2615 ] 654 F.2d 1164, 1173 (5 Cir.1981), The Chickie, [ 1944 AMC 635 , 641-42] 141 F.2d 80, 84 (3rd Cir.1944).

1997Langnes, 282 U.S. at 540-41 , 51 S.Ct. at 246-47 , 1931 AMC at 518-19, Signal Oil & Gas Co. v. Barge W-701, [ 1982 AMC 2603, 2615 ] 654 F.2d 1164, 1173 (5 Cir.1981), The Chickie, [ 1944 AMC 635 , 641-42] 141 F.2d 80, 84 (3rd Cir.1944).

1997Langnes, 282 U.S. at 540-41 , 51 S.Ct. at 246-47 , 1931 AMC at 518-19, Signal Oil & Gas Co. v. Barge W-701, [ 1982 AMC 2603, 2615 ] 654 F.2d 1164, 1173 (5 Cir.1981), The Chickie, [ 1944 AMC 635 , 641-42] 141 F.2d 80, 84 (3rd Cir.1944).

1990Heinhuis v. Venture Associates, Inc. of Louisiana, 558 So.2d 1244 (La.App. 1st Cir.1990).

1978Co. v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375, 386 , 44 S.Ct. 391, 393 , 68 L.Ed. 748 . * * * ” Additionally, in Garrett v. Moore-McCor-mack Co., Inc., 8 the United States Supreme Court made the following statement regarding application of maritime law to actions in state court: “It must be remembered that the state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts to try actions either under the Merchant Marine Act or in personam such as maintenance and cure.

1978Co. v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375, 386 , 44 S.Ct. 391, 393 , 68 L.Ed. 748 . * * * ” Additionally, in Garrett v. Moore-McCor-mack Co., Inc., 8 the United States Supreme Court made the following statement regarding application of maritime law to actions in state court: “It must be remembered that the state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts to try actions either under the Merchant Marine Act or in personam such as maintenance and cure.

1965Moreover, the last sentence of Section 1333(a) (2) provides that whatever the applicable laws may be they are to be "administered by * * * the courts of the United States" which strongly implies though it does not explicitly declare exclusive jurisdiction. *556 See also Touchet v. Travelers Indemnity Company, D.C., 221 F.Supp. 376 (1963) in which the Court, citing the Pure Oil Company case, held that Federal, not State, law governs recovery of oil field laborers for injuries sustained while working on structures located on the outer Continental Shelf.