Legal Opinion
Jose v. M/V FIR GROVE
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided October 15, 1991No. Civ. 90-6028-MAPublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MARSH, District Judge.
Plaintiffs are fourteen foreign seamen who filed this action seeking to recover back wages and penalties pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 10313 as well as compensatory and punitive damages for common law claims of blacklisting, outrageous conduct, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, duress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud 1 and a newly asserted claim under the federal racketeering law, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. 2 In addition, plaintiff Edwin Jose and his wife, Augustine Jose, seek to recover damages for a maritime personal injury under…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Arabian American Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Langnes v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Gibson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- The Republic of the Philippines v. Ferdinand E. MarcosCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Nilo D. Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, a Foreign CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Doe I v. State of IsraelDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2005
- Liquidation Commission of Banco Intercontinental, S.A. v. RentaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2008
- Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2003
- Biofeedtrac, Inc. v. Kolinor Optical Enterprises & Consultants, S.R.L.District Court, E.D. New York · 1993
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.