Legal Opinion

Edward Arthur v. Maersk, Inc. D/B/A Maersk Line Ltd. Dyn Corp. Technical Services D/B/A Dyn Marine Services the United States of America

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided January 13, 2006No. 04-3670PublishedCited by 395 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

FISHER, Circuit Judge.

From the high seas comes a question of federal civil procedure. After suffering a series of injuries while working as a merchant seaman, Edward Arthur sued his employers, Maersk, Inc., and Dyn Marine Services of Virginia, Inc., 1 for negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. app. § 688. Only later did he realize that, because the companies were operating as agents of the United States Navy, the only proper defendant in the case was the United States. He sought and was granted leave to file an amended complaint naming the United States as a party, and…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Irwin v. Department of Veterans AffairsSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Schlagenhauf v. HolderSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  4. Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Industries Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  5. Jones v. Robinson Property Group, L.P.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2005

39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by395 opinions

  1. Kareem Garrett v. Wexford HealthCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019
  2. Goodman v. Praxair, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007
  3. KRUPSKI v. COSTA CROCIERE S. P. ASupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  4. Minter v. Prime Equipment Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
  5. Joan Mullin v. Karen BalickiCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2017

390 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API