Transocean Enterprise, Inc. v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc.
Mississippi Supreme Court
1Concurrence
GRAVES, Presiding Justice, specially concurring:
¶ 13. Finally, the majority reaches the right result in this case. But, alas, it is for the wrong reason. While I agree that this Court should not consider the applicability of Section 31-5-41 and that Ingalls is entitled to indemnity, I am compelled to explain the reasons for my agreement.
¶ 14. The majority states: “Transocean seemingly has a duty to indemnify Ingalls. This duty, however, arguably could be voided by Mississippi Code Section 31-5-II to the extent that the indemnity provision in the Shipyard Agreement provides for indemnification…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Howard v. Estate of Harper Ex Rel. HarperMississippi Supreme Court · 2006
- Burleson v. LathemMississippi Supreme Court · 2007
- Pass Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. WalkerMississippi Supreme Court · 2004
- MISS. DHS v. GuidryMississippi Supreme Court · 2002
- Continental Turpentine & Rosin Co. v. Gulp Naval Stores Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1962
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.