Daniel v. Penrod Drilling Company
District Court, E.D. Louisiana
1Opinion of the Court
ALVIN B. RUBIN, District Judge:
By motion for mistrial, one of the defendants in a jury trial raises the issue whether an agreement between the plaintiff and a co-defendant, not revealed to the jury or the moving defendant, to dismiss the co-defendant at the end of the trial, in exchange for the co-defendant’s agreement to offer no resistance to the plaintiff’s case, warrants a new trial.
Vernon Daniel, a Jones Act employee of Penrod, sued his employer for injuries sustained aboard a crew boat while en route to an offshore location. Pen-rod had contracted to perform offshore services for…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. YeattsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1941
- Booth v. Mary Carter Paint CompanyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1967
- Ward v. OchoaSupreme Court of Florida · 1973
- Pellett v. Sonotone Corp.California Supreme Court · 1945
- Lum v. StinnettNevada Supreme Court · 1971
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- General Motors Corp. v. LahockiCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1980
- Ronnie Gene Bass v. Phoenix Seadrill/78, Ltd., Third-Party v. Crown Rig Building Services, Inc., and Branham Industries, Inc., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- Ziegler v. Wendel Poultry Services, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1993
- Burkett v. Crulo Trucking CompanyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1976
- Champion v. Panel Era Mfg. Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1982
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.