Legal Opinion
Jose v. M/V FIR GROVE
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided February 8, 1991No. Civ. 90-6028-MAPublishedCited by 6 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 and fraud. In addition, plaintiff Edwin Jose and his wife, Augustine Jose, seek to recover damages for a maritime personal injury under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. App. § 688 and general maritime law of the United States. Both…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. ReynoSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Sundance Cruises Corp. v. American Bureau of ShippingDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1992
- Jose v. M/V FIR GROVEDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1991
- Jose v. M/V FIR GROVEDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1991
- Jose v. M/V FIR GROVEDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1992
- Brandenberger v. Chinnery (In Re Chinnery)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Missouri · 1995
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.