Legal Opinion
George v. Hillman Transportation Company
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided March 21, 1972No. Civ. A. 69-809, 69-1225, 70-394PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WEBER, District Judge.
These three consolidated cases arise out of two separate incidents in which plaintiff claims she was injured. Defendant has filed motions for Summary Judgment in each case on the grounds that the negligence claims asserted under the Jones Act are barred by the three year statute of limitations upon such claims, that the seaworthiness claims under the general maritime law are barred by laches and that the claim for maintenance and cure must fail for want of notice and demand for maintenance and cure by plaintiff.
These motions for summary judgment were filed at the…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Burnett v. New York Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Vaughan v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern District TerminalSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co. of NJSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Farrell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Donald D. Fletcher v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980
- Sanchez v. Loffland Brothers CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
- John M. Atkins v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- GAF CORPORATION v. Amchem Products, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1975
- Melhorn v. Amrep CorporationDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1974
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.