Baptiste v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
1Dissent
HANSON (Thaxton), J.
I respectfully dissent for the reasons stated in the majority opinion.
In my opinion the ball game is over and the petition should be denied once the majority opinion correctly concluded, as it did, (1) that while litigants may elect to pursue recovery pursuant to the Jones Act (46 U.S.C. § 688) and under the general maritime law doctrine of unseaworthiness in state courts, as distinguished from federal courts (probably for some perceived procedural reasons), “The prevailing rule is *105that, regardless of the forum, federal [maritime] substantive law applies” (original…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Southern Pacific Company v. JensenSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. StewartSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Engel v. DavenportSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Van Beeck v. Sabine Towing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
- United States v. James O. Gambrill, United States of America v. Jerry L. HunterCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1971
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.