Legal Opinion

Cavin v. State, Fish & Wildlife Protection Division of the Department of Public Safety

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided April 7, 2000No. S-8630PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BRYNER, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

After a non-jury trial, the superior court rejected James Cavin's maritime tort claims against his former employer, the State of Alaska, finding that he had failed to prove his status as a Jones Act "seaman" and that federal statutes preclude his general maritime claims. Because the superior court evidently did not consider all of the evidence and applicable law bearing on the issue of whether Cavin was a Jones Act seaman and because we conclude that Cavin has a potentially viable maritime seaworthiness claim, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Seas Shipping Co. v. SierackiSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
  3. Southern Pacific Company v. JensenSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  4. McAllister v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
  5. Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. HawnSupreme Court of the United States · 1953

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Marine Solution Services, Inc. v. HortonAlaska Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Freeze v. Lost Isle PartnersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  3. Janes v. Alaska Railbelt Marine, LLCAlaska Supreme Court · 2013
  4. Hunting v. American Family Mutual Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2020
  5. Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht ClubCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API