Legal Opinion
Boyd v. Cinmar of Gloucester, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Virginia
Decided March 7, 1996No. Civil Action No. 2:95cv132PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JACKSON, District Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Cinmar of Gloucester has moved for partial summary judgment. This motion presents the issue of whether punitive damages are permissible in maintenance and cure actions. The Court GRANTS the motion with the exception of allowing recovery of attorney’s fees.
I. FACTS
Plaintiff Karl Boyd, a seaman in the service of Defendant’s vessel, F/V Cinmar II, has filed a complaint pursuant to the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A.App. § 688 (West 1975) and under general maritime law. He claims that he was seriously and permanently injured as a…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Miles v. Apex Marine Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Kelly v. Bass Enterprises Production Co.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1998
- Watters v. Harrah's Illinois Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1998
- American Civil Liberties Union v. SantillanesDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 2007
- Hackensmith v. Port City Steamship Holding Co.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2013
- Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. v. TownsendCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2007
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.