Legal Opinion
Anderson v. Texaco, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Decided June 24, 1992No. Civ. A. 90-4623, 91-4300 and 92-197PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER AND REASONS
FELDMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court is defendant Penrod Drilling Corp.’s 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the personal injury plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims. For the reasons that follow, Penrod’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
BACKGROUND
These three consolidated cases 1 arise out of a gas explosion aboard the drilling rig Penrod 93.
At about 2:30 a.m. on November 23, 1989, Michael Pierce, Penrod’s acting driller, awoke plaintiff, Woodrow Steven Anderson, and asked him to help in conducting a pressure test of a lubricator on defendant Texaco Inc.’s natural gas…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Miles v. Apex Marine Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Michigan Central Railroad v. VreelandSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Day v. WoodworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
- Molzof v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Northwestern National Casualty Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin v. Edward A. McNulty and Walter Scott SmithCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Penrod Drilling Corp. v. WilliamsTexas Supreme Court · 1993
- Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
- Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995
- Ceh, Inc. v. F/v Seafarer (On 675048)Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
- CEH, Inc. v. FV "Seafarer" (ON 675048)District Court, D. Rhode Island · 1994
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.