Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Brown v. Parker Drilling Offshore Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided January 7, 2005No. 03-30782Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCarl E. Stewart, Circuit Judge
I concur in the panel majority’s decision affirming: (1) the Jones Act verdict in favor of Brown; (2) the denial of Parker Drilling’s motion for new trial claiming that the trial judge improperly charged the jury in its attempt to remedy the inconsistent verdict; and (3) the denial of Parker Drilling’s motion for new trial claiming that it was prejudiced by Brown’s counsel’s invocation of the Golden Rule. Regarding the majority’s reversal of Brown’s maintenance and cure verdict, I continue to dissent.
The initial majority opinion appearing at 396 F.3d 619 (5th Cir.2005), completely substituted…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- International Shortstop, Inc., and Sam Talkington v. Rally's, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
- Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Vaughan v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.