Legal Opinion
Philip Stanfield v. Shellmaker, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 9, 1989No. 87-2920PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CANBY, Circuit Judge:
Phillip Stanfield appeals from a final judgment in the district court following a bench trial of his claims under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.App. § 688. Stanfield contends that the district court erred in finding as a matter of law that he was not a “seaman” under the Jones Act because he was employed on a vessel that was not operating on navigable waters. He further contends that the district court erred in finding that the “fleet seaman" doctrine did not cure his problems arising from the location of the vessel at the time of the injury. We agree with the district court…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Foremost Insurance v. RichardsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. HigginbothamSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- The Propeller Genesee Chief v. FitzhughSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
- O'Donnell v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Swanson v. Marra Brothers, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Albert C. Reeves Dolores Reeves, His Wife v. Mobile Dredging & Pumping Company, Inc., Albert C. Reeves and Dolores ReevesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Helen Ehret Bach, Eugene G. Bach, Iii, Janet B. Lashley v. Trident Steamship Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
- Byron Gizoni v. Southwest Marine IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Delta Country Ventures, Inc. v. Don MaganaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- Albert C. Reeves Dolores Reeves, His Wife v. Mobile Dredging & Pumping Company, Inc., Albert C. Reeves and Dolores ReevesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.