Legal Opinion
William Crisman and Patricia Crisman v. Odeco, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided May 31, 1991No. 90-3472PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff William Crisman suffers from loss of hearing and hypersensitivity to chemicals, allegedly because of his exposure to petroleum-based chemicals while serving on vessels owned by his employer, defendant Odeco, Inc. (Odeco). The district court held that Crisman’s suit was time-barred because he either knew or should have known, long before he filed this suit, that his injuries were linked to his work. 736 F.Supp. 712 (E.D.La.1990). Because we agree that the statute of limitations bars Crisman’s suit, we affirm.
I
Crisman alleges that he sustained a hearing…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- United States v. KubrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. ShipmanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
- Urie v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Wilkerson v. McCarthySupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Albert E. Albertson v. T.J. Stevenson & Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1984
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Wilson v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
- CSX Transportation, Inc. v. MillerCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2004
- Mary L. Goodhand v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- Servicios-Expoarma, C.A., and Orimpex-Zona Ind. Del Este v. Industrial Maritime Carriers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1998
- Charles A. Bealer, Sr. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.