63 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Barbara Jean Johnson, Cross-Appellant v. Offshore Express, Inc., Cross-Appelleegreen2 sentences2003Evidence of the "slightest" negligence is sufficient to sustain a finding of Jones Act liability, and the burden on a plaintiff for showing causation in a Jones Act claim is "featherweight." Johnson v. Offshore Express, Inc., 845 F.2d 1347, 1352 (5 Cir.1988). 2003Evidence of the "slightest" negligence is sufficient to sustain a finding of Jones Act liability, and the burden on a plaintiff for showing causation in a Jones Act claim is "featherweight." Johnson v. Offshore Express, Inc., 845 F.2d 1347, 1352 (5 Cir.1988). | 3 | 5 |
Carl M. Williams, Cross-Appellant v. Reading & Bates Drilling Co., and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Cross-Appelleesgreen2 sentences2008Williams v. Reading & Bates Drilling Co., 750 F.2d 487, 491 (C.A.La.1985). 2008Williams v. Reading & Bates Drilling Co., 750 F.2d 487, 491 (C.A.La.1985). | 2 | 4 |
Foster v. Destin Trading Corp.green2 sentences2003ISSUES On appeal, Lopez argues that the jury erred as a matter of law in finding that neither Marine Drilling nor Tidewater breached their duties owed to him, and, in the alternative, that its conclusion was manifestly erroneous. [1] LAW The law pertaining to a Jones Act claim was laid out by the supreme court in Foster v. Destin Trading Corp., 96-0803, pp. 3-4 (La.5/30/97), 700 So.2d 199, 208 (on rehearing): The Jones Act allows an injured seaman to bring a negligence suit against his employer. 46 U.S.C.App. § 688 (1994). 2003ISSUES On appeal, Lopez argues that the jury erred as a matter of law in finding that neither Marine Drilling nor Tidewater breached their duties owed to him, and, in the alternative, that its conclusion was manifestly erroneous. [1] LAW The law pertaining to a Jones Act claim was laid out by the supreme court in Foster v. Destin Trading Corp., 96-0803, pp. 3-4 (La.5/30/97), 700 So.2d 199, 208 (on rehearing): The Jones Act allows an injured seaman to bring a negligence suit against his employer. 46 U.S.C.App. § 688 (1994). | 2 | 4 |
Barbara A. Green, as Administratrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael Ray Green, Deceased, Etc. v. Harry J. Rossgreen2 sentences1978See Green v. Ross, 481 F.2d 102 (C.A. 5th Cir. 1972)." ( Benoit v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 347 So.2d at 272 ) In Green v. Ross, supra , an action for wrongful death under the general maritime law was brought in federal district court based upon Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375 , 90 S.Ct. 1772 , 26 L.Ed.2d 339 (1970). 1978See Green v. Ross, 481 F.2d 102 (C.A. 5th Cir. 1972)." ( Benoit v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 347 So.2d at 272 ) In Green v. Ross, supra , an action for wrongful death under the general maritime law was brought in federal district court based upon Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375 , 90 S.Ct. 1772 , 26 L.Ed.2d 339 (1970). | 2 | 2 |
Chandris, Inc. v. Latsisgreen2 sentences2018The purpose of the Jones Act test is to limit recovery under the Act to employees whose work "regularly expose[s] them to the perils of the sea." Id. 2018The purpose of the Jones Act test is to limit recovery under the Act to employees whose work "regularly expose[s] them to the perils of the sea." Id. | 1 | 4 |
Mihalopoulos v. Westwind Africa Line, Ltd.green2 sentences1996Mihalopoulos v. Westwind Africa Line, Ltd., 511 So.2d 771, 781 (La.App. 5th Cir.1987). 1996Mihalopoulos v. Westwind Africa Line, Ltd., 511 So.2d 771, 781 (La.App. 5th Cir.1987). | 1 | 3 |
Kuebel v. Department of Wildlife & Fisheriesgreen2 sentences2011In May of 2009, the State re-urged its exception of no cause of action relying on the then recently decided Fourth Circuit case of Kuebel v. Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries, 08-1018 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/15/09) , 14 So.3d 20 , which held that seamen employed by the State could not sue their employer under the Jones Act or general maritime law in state court because Louisiana has not expressly consented to such suits nor has it waived its sovereign immunity as to such suits. 2011In May of 2009, the State re-urged its exception of no cause of action relying on the then recently decided Fourth Circuit case of Kuebel v. Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries, 08-1018 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/15/09) , 14 So.3d 20 , which held that seamen employed by the State could not sue their employer under the Jones Act or general maritime law in state court because Louisiana has not expressly consented to such suits nor has it waived its sovereign immunity as to such suits. | 1 | 2 |
Charles D. Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc.green2 sentences2010The statutory scheme and Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Jones Act and its standard of causation were discussed in Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331, 335 (5 Cir.1997) (alteration in first paragraph in original) as follows: Under the Jones Act, seamen are afforded rights parallel to those of railway employees under the Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA"). 46 U.S.C. § 688 . 2010The statutory scheme and Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Jones Act and its standard of causation were discussed in Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331, 335 (5 Cir.1997) (alteration in first paragraph in original) as follows: Under the Jones Act, seamen are afforded rights parallel to those of railway employees under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”). 46 U.S.C. § 688 . | 1 | 2 |
Carter v. Mulegreen2 sentences2016See Carter v. Mule, 346 So.2d 882, 883-84 (La.App. 4 Cir.1977) (claim remained viable in fact and in law at time of defendant-attorney’s discharge). 2016See Carter v. Mule, 346 So.2d 882, 883-84 (La.App. 4 Cir.1977) (claim remained viable in fact and in law at time of defendant-attorney’s discharge). | 1 | 1 |
Bercegeay v. Cal-Dive International, Inc.green2 sentences2010As a result, because a question remained as to whether the mechanic’s claim was covered under the Longshore Act, summary judgment dismissing his alternative Jones Act claim “cannot be supported on the basis ... that coverage of a worker under the LHWCA precludes that worker from entitlement to Jones Act benefits.” Id. at 1185. 2010As a result, because a question remained as to whether the mechanic’s claim was covered under the Longshore Act, summary judgment dismissing his alternative Jones Act claim “cannot be supported on the basis ... that coverage of a worker under the LHWCA precludes that worker from entitlement to Jones Act benefits.” Id. at 1185. | 1 | 1 |
Joseph Figueroa, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Campbell Industries, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appelleegreen2 sentences2003In Figueroa v. Campbell Industries, 45 F.3d 311 (9th Cir.1995), a shipyard worker who sustained injury while working aboard his employer’s boat, filed a Jones Act claim after receiving both LHWCA and state workers’ compensation benefits. 2003In Figueroa v. Campbell Industries, 45 F.3d 311 (9th Cir.1995), a shipyard worker who sustained injury while working aboard his employer’s boat, filed a Jones Act claim after receiving both LHWCA and state workers’ compensation benefits. | 1 | 1 |
| Barks v. Magnolia Marine Transport Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Rutherford v. Sea-Land Service, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Jimmie R. Rachal, Cross-Appellant v. Ingram Corporation, Cross-Appelleegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tyrone Powell v. Offshore Navigation, Inc., Etc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Huff v. Compass Nav., Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Huff v. Compass Navigation, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Lavergne v. Western Co. of North America, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pyrotronics Corp. v. Pyrodyne Corp.
green
2 sentences1997"We have described the burden of the plaintiff for showing causation in a Jones Act claim as `featherweight'." Johnson v. Offshore Express, Inc., 845 F.2d 1347, 1352-53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, Offshore Exp., Inc. v. Johnson, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 533 (1988). 1997"We have described the burden of the plaintiff for showing causation in a Jones Act claim as `featherweight'." Johnson v. Offshore Express, Inc., 845 F.2d 1347, 1352-53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, Offshore Exp., Inc. v. Johnson, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 533 (1988). | 4 | 1994–1997 |
Rakovich v. Wade
green
2 sentences1997"We have described the burden of the plaintiff for showing causation in a Jones Act claim as `featherweight'." Johnson v. Offshore Express, Inc., 845 F.2d 1347, 1352-53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, Offshore Exp., Inc. v. Johnson, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 533 (1988). 1997"We have described the burden of the plaintiff for showing causation in a Jones Act claim as `featherweight'." Johnson v. Offshore Express, Inc., 845 F.2d 1347, 1352-53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, Offshore Exp., Inc. v. Johnson, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 533 (1988). | 4 | 1994–1997 |
McNulty v. W. S. Libbey Co.
green
2 sentences1997"We have described the burden of the plaintiff for showing causation in a Jones Act claim as `featherweight'." Johnson v. Offshore Express, Inc., 845 F.2d 1347, 1352-53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, Offshore Exp., Inc. v. Johnson, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 533 (1988). 1997"We have described the burden of the plaintiff for showing causation in a Jones Act claim as `featherweight'." Johnson v. Offshore Express, Inc., 845 F.2d 1347, 1352-53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, Offshore Exp., Inc. v. Johnson, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 533 (1988). | 4 | 1994–1997 |
Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Co.
green
2 sentences2004Id. at 21-22 , 83 S.Ct. at 1650-51 . 2004Id. at 21-22 , 83 S.Ct. at 1650-51 . | 3 | 1983–2004 |
Bradford McPhillamy v. Brown & Root, Inc.
green
2 sentences1994Compass cites McPhillamy v. Brown & Root, Inc., 810 F.2d 529 (5th Cir.1987) and Osorio, supra, cases in which the jury failed to apportion liability between the Jones Act claim and the general maritime claim. 1994Compass cites McPhillamy v. Brown & Root, Inc., 810 F.2d 529 (5th Cir.1987) and Osorio, supra, cases in which the jury failed to apportion liability between the Jones Act claim and the general maritime claim. | 3 | 1990–1995 |
Milstead v. Diamond M Offshore, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998Yet, the Louisiana Supreme Court, in Milstead v. Diamond M Offshore, Inc., 95-2446 (La.7/2/96), 676 So.2d 89 , held that a Jones Act claim, tried to a judge, permitted pre-judgment interest at the discretion of the court. 1998Yet, the Louisiana Supreme Court, in Milstead v. Diamond M Offshore, Inc., 95-2446 (La.7/2/96), 676 So.2d 89 , held that a Jones Act claim, tried to a judge, permitted pre-judgment interest at the discretion of the court. | 2 | 1998–1999 |
Heinhuis v. Venture Associates, Inc.
green
2 sentences1992The First Circuit Court of Appeal has twice determined, both in Sons v. Inland Marine Service, Inc., 577 So.2d 225 (1st Cir.1991) and in Heinhuis v. Venture Assoc., 558 So.2d 1244 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 559 So.2d 1369 , 559 So.2d 1385 (La.1990), that the Jones Act claim is an admiralty or general maritime claim under federal law. 1992The First Circuit Court of Appeal has twice determined, both in Sons v. Inland Marine Service, Inc., 577 So.2d 225 (1st Cir.1991) and in Heinhuis v. Venture Assoc., 558 So.2d 1244 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 559 So.2d 1369 , 559 So.2d 1385 (La.1990), that the Jones Act claim is an admiralty or general maritime claim under federal law. | 2 | 1991–1992 |
Wisner v. PROFESSIONAL DIVERS OF NO
green
2 sentences2018"Jones Act coverage should not be withheld because the vessels are not under the employer's common ownership or control, when claimants are continuously subjected to the perils of the sea and engaged in classical seaman's work." Wisner v. Prof'l Divers of New Orleans, 98-1755 (La. 3/2/99), 731 So.2d 200 , 203. 2018"Jones Act coverage should not be withheld because the vessels are not under the employer's common ownership or control, when claimants are continuously subjected to the perils of the sea and engaged in classical seaman's work." Wisner v. Prof'l Divers of New Orleans, 98-1755 (La. 3/2/99), 731 So.2d 200 , 203. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Richard v. Mike Hooks, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016See Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 368-70 , 115 S.Ct. 2172 , 132 L.Ed.2d 314 (1995); Richard v. Mike Hooks, Inc., 01-0145, p. 3 (La.10/16/01), 799 So.2d 462, 465 ; see also 46 U.S.C. § 30104 (Personal injury to or death of seamen). 2016See Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 368-70 , 115 S.Ct. 2172 , 132 L.Ed.2d 314 (1995); Richard v. Mike Hooks, Inc., 01-0145, p. 3 (La.10/16/01), 799 So.2d 462, 465 ; see also 46 U.S.C. § 30104 (Personal injury to or death of seamen). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Higgins v. STATE, THROUGH DOTD
green
2 sentences2011After a hearing on January 10, 2008, the trial court denied the State’s exceptions, relying on the Fourth Circuit decision of Higgins v. State of Louisiana, 627 So.2d 217 (La.App. 4 Cir.1993), which found the State was not immune from suits under the Jones Act and an injured state-employed seaman could bring a Jones Act claim against the State in state court. 2011After a hearing on January 10, 2008, the trial court denied the State’s exceptions, relying on the Fourth Circuit decision of Higgins v. State of Louisiana, 627 So.2d 217 (La.App. 4 Cir.1993), which found the State was not immune from suits under the Jones Act and an injured state-employed seaman could bring a Jones Act claim against the State in state court. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Bell v. Dunn
green
1 sentence2010Bell v. Dunn, 2004-2117, p. 13 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/21/05), 924 So.2d 224, 234 . *925 The trial court in Richard originally denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that a jury could reasonably find that the plaintiff had established seaman status. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Baiton v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.
green
2 sentences2002An employer cannot legally discharge a seaman for refusing to get underway in an unseaworthy vessel, Borden v. Amoco Coastwise Trading Co., 985 F.Supp. 692 (S.D.Texas 1997); for refusing to sail because he believes to do so would endanger passengers, Seymore v. Lake Tahoe Cruises, Inc., 888 F.Supp. 1029 (E.D.Cal.1995); for testifying on behalf of a former co-worker in a Jones Act claim and for refusing to testify falsely for the *359 employer, Baiton v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 661 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); or for filing a personal injury claim, Smith v. Atlas Off-Shore Boat Service, I 2002An employer cannot legally discharge a seaman for refusing to get underway in an unseaworthy vessel, Borden v. Amoco Coastwise Trading Co., 985 F.Supp. 692 (S.D.Texas 1997); for refusing to sail because he believes to do so would endanger passengers, Seymore v. Lake Tahoe Cruises, Inc., 888 F.Supp. 1029 (E.D.Cal.1995); for testifying on behalf of a former co-worker in a Jones Act claim and for refusing to testify falsely for the *359 employer, Baiton v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 661 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); or for filing a personal injury claim, Smith v. Atlas Off-Shore Boat Service, I | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Miles v. Apex Marine Corp.
green
2 sentences2002Moreover, concerning the plaintiff's cause of action under the general maritime law for unseaworthiness, the Court concluded: "It would be inconsistent with our place in the constitutional scheme were we to sanction more expansive remedies in a judicially created cause of action in which liability is without fault [unseaworthiness claim] than Congress has allowed in cases of death resulting from negligence [Jones Act claim]." Id. at 32-33 , 111 S.Ct. at 326 . 2002Moreover, concerning the plaintiff's cause of action under the general maritime law for unseaworthiness, the Court concluded: "It would be inconsistent with our place in the constitutional scheme were we to sanction more expansive remedies in a judicially created cause of action in which liability is without fault [unseaworthiness claim] than Congress has allowed in cases of death resulting from negligence [Jones Act claim]." Id. at 32-33 , 111 S.Ct. at 326 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Seymore v. Lake Tahoe Cruises, Inc.
green
2 sentences2002An employer cannot legally discharge a seaman for refusing to get underway in an unseaworthy vessel, Borden v. Amoco Coastwise Trading Co., 985 F.Supp. 692 (S.D.Texas 1997); for refusing to sail because he believes to do so would endanger passengers, Seymore v. Lake Tahoe Cruises, Inc., 888 F.Supp. 1029 (E.D.Cal.1995); for testifying on behalf of a former co-worker in a Jones Act claim and for refusing to testify falsely for the *359 employer, Baiton v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 661 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); or for filing a personal injury claim, Smith v. Atlas Off-Shore Boat Service, I 2002An employer cannot legally discharge a seaman for refusing to get underway in an unseaworthy vessel, Borden v. Amoco Coastwise Trading Co., 985 F.Supp. 692 (S.D.Texas 1997); for refusing to sail because he believes to do so would endanger passengers, Seymore v. Lake Tahoe Cruises, Inc., 888 F.Supp. 1029 (E.D.Cal.1995); for testifying on behalf of a former co-worker in a Jones Act claim and for refusing to testify falsely for the *359 employer, Baiton v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 661 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); or for filing a personal injury claim, Smith v. Atlas Off-Shore Boat Service, I | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Borden v. Amoco Coastwise Trading Co.
green
2 sentences2002An employer cannot legally discharge a seaman for refusing to get underway in an unseaworthy vessel, Borden v. Amoco Coastwise Trading Co., 985 F.Supp. 692 (S.D.Texas 1997); for refusing to sail because he believes to do so would endanger passengers, Seymore v. Lake Tahoe Cruises, Inc., 888 F.Supp. 1029 (E.D.Cal.1995); for testifying on behalf of a former co-worker in a Jones Act claim and for refusing to testify falsely for the *359 employer, Baiton v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 661 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); or for filing a personal injury claim, Smith v. Atlas Off-Shore Boat Service, I 2002An employer cannot legally discharge a seaman for refusing to get underway in an unseaworthy vessel, Borden v. Amoco Coastwise Trading Co., 985 F.Supp. 692 (S.D.Texas 1997); for refusing to sail because he believes to do so would endanger passengers, Seymore v. Lake Tahoe Cruises, Inc., 888 F.Supp. 1029 (E.D.Cal.1995); for testifying on behalf of a former co-worker in a Jones Act claim and for refusing to testify falsely for the *359 employer, Baiton v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 661 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); or for filing a personal injury claim, Smith v. Atlas Off-Shore Boat Service, I | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Jerry Smith, Cross-Appellee v. Atlas Off-Shore Boat Service, Inc., Cross-Appellant
green
2 sentences2002An employer cannot legally discharge a seaman for refusing to get underway in an unseaworthy vessel, Borden v. Amoco Coastwise Trading Co., 985 F.Supp. 692 (S.D.Texas 1997); for refusing to sail because he believes to do so would endanger passengers, Seymore v. Lake Tahoe Cruises, Inc., 888 F.Supp. 1029 (E.D.Cal.1995); for testifying on behalf of a former co-worker in a Jones Act claim and for refusing to testify falsely for the *359 employer, Baiton v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 661 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); or for filing a personal injury claim, Smith v. Atlas Off-Shore Boat Service, I 2002An employer cannot legally discharge a seaman for refusing to get underway in an unseaworthy vessel, Borden v. Amoco Coastwise Trading Co., 985 F.Supp. 692 (S.D.Texas 1997); for refusing to sail because he believes to do so would endanger passengers, Seymore v. Lake Tahoe Cruises, Inc., 888 F.Supp. 1029 (E.D.Cal.1995); for testifying on behalf of a former co-worker in a Jones Act claim and for refusing to testify falsely for the *359 employer, Baiton v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 661 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); or for filing a personal injury claim, Smith v. Atlas Off-Shore Boat Service, I | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Olivier v. Best Workover, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2000In Olivier v. Best Workover, Inc., 94-994 (La.App. 5th Cir.1/30/96), 669 So.2d 476, 491 , we stated that pre-judgment interest on a maritime claim is governed by general maritime law and that pre-judgment interest is awarded in a Jones Act claim when the claim of unseaworthiness and a claim under the Jones Act are tried together before a judge. 2000In Olivier v. Best Workover, Inc., 94-994 (La.App. 5th Cir.1/30/96), 669 So.2d 476, 491 , we stated that pre-judgment interest on a maritime claim is governed by general maritime law and that pre-judgment interest is awarded in a Jones Act claim when the claim of unseaworthiness and a claim under the Jones Act are tried together before a judge. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Caravalho v. Dual Drilling Services, Inc. neutral | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Green v. Industrial Helicopters, Inc. green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Caravalho v. Dual Drilling Services, Inc. green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Cormier v. Cliff's Drilling Co. green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Babineaux v. Lykes Bros. SS Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences1999"Reviewing the issue of the plaintiff's contributory negligence, we keep in mind that a seaman's duty is to do his work as he is instructed and his duty to protect himself is slight." Cormier, 93-1260 at p. 4, 640 So.2d at 555 [citing Babineaux, 608 So.2d at 662 ]. 1999"Reviewing the issue of the plaintiff's contributory negligence, we keep in mind that a seaman's duty is to do his work as he is instructed and his duty to protect himself is slight." Cormier, 93-1260 at p. 4, 640 So.2d at 555 [citing Babineaux, 608 So.2d at 662 ]. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
McGovern v. Town of Yorktown
green
1 sentence1999Foster v. Destin Trading Corp., 96-0803 (La.5/30/97), 700 So.2d 199 ; Green v. Industrial Helicopters, Inc., 593 So.2d 634 (La.1992), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 506 U.S. 819 , 113 S.Ct. 65 , 121 L.Ed.2d 32 (1992). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Triple M Drilling Co. v. Seider green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Marlin Maxwell v. Hyson Swain green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Perry v. Allied Offshore Marine Corp. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Daugherty v. Cross Marine, Inc. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| McDermott International, Inc. v. Wilander green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Lynch v. Hanover Ins. Co. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Mistich v. Pipelines, Inc. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| cluster 527835 green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Parker v. Rowan Companies, Inc. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Champagne v. American Southern Insurance Co. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Osorio v. Waterman SS Corp. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Gizoni green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Nicholas R. Pizzitolo, and National Union Fire Insurance Company, Intervenor-Appellant v. Electro-Coal Transfer Corporation green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Barks v. Magnolia Marine Transport Co. neutral | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Dobrowolskyj v. Jefferson County green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| E. C. Ernst, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.