Legal Opinion
Eddy v. Inland Bay Drilling & Workover, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Texas
Decided February 12, 1992No. G-91-417PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
KENT, District Judge.
Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand and Motion for Sanctions and Defendants’ Motion to Transfer. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand is GRANTED, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions is DENIED, and Defendants’ Motion to Transfer is not reached.
I
Plaintiffs initiated this action on April 24, 1991 in the 212th District Court, County of Galveston, State of Texas, asserting a Jones Act 1 claim and several state-law negligence claims. Plaintiffs filed suit in state court pursuant to the maritime “savings to suitors” clause. 28 U.S.C. § 1333.…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Caterpillar Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. ReynoSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Gully v. First Nat. Bank in MeridianSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Searcy v. KnostmanDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi · 1993
- Mizell v. Prism Computer Corp.District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 1998
- Mills v. BO-MAC Contractors, Ltd.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 2019
- Toups v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1994