Legal Opinion
Scarborough v. Clemco Industries
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided November 22, 2004No. 03-30985PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LITTLE, District Judge:
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This appeal arises from the' district court’s judgment dismissing the claims for nonpecuniary damages of Appellants, Barbara Scarborough, Rhonda Scarborough, and William Scarborough, Jr. (“Appellants”). See Scarborough v. Clemco Indus., 264 F.Supp.2d 437 (E.D.La.2003) (stating the reasons upon which the district court dismissed the claim for nonpe-cuniary damages). Appellants had sued, inter alia, Clemco Industries, Inc. (“Clem-co”), Pulmosan Safety Equipment Co. (“Pulmosan”) and Century Indemnity Co. (“Century”) (collectively…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Salve Regina College v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Miles v. Apex Marine Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Texaco Exploration & Production Inc. v. AmClyde Engineered Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2006
- Cabasug v. Crane Co.District Court, D. Hawaii · 2013
- Figueroa v. Marine Inspection Services, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2014
- Hicks v. BP Exploration & Prod., Inc.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 2018
- Kelly v. PORTER, INC.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 2010
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.