Legal Opinion
Raymond Webster, Jr., Cross-Appellee v. M/v Moolchand, Sethia Liners, Ltd., Cross-Appellant
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided April 30, 1984No. 83-3056PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RUBIN, Circuit Judge:
Special interrogatories to the jury have wondrous virtues. 1 The court may carefully consider the exact question to be asked, the possible ambiguities in the form of the question, and the consequences of each of the possible answers. If, however, the parties do not carefully reflect on the questions and on the implications of the jury’s responses, they may find that the jury’s answer did not resolve the case but left room for an appeal. In this personal injury suit, as a result of the parties’ failure fully to explore the implications of every possible answer to a special…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los SantosSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale TransatlantiqueSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. PfeiferSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Noritake Co., Inc. v. M/v Hellenic ChampionCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
- Peterson v. WeinbergerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Hernandez v. M/V RajaanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1988
- Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Jo Daviess Services, Inc. v. Elizabeth State Bank, an Illinois State Chartered BankCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001
- Randolph v. LaeiszCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1990
- Michael E. MENNOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. the FORT HOOD NATIONAL BANK, Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1987
- Mrs. Maria Toth Futo, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Intervenor-Appellant v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1984
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.