Legal Opinion
Pigrenet v. Boland Marine & Manufacturing Co.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided September 21, 1981No. 79-1782PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Per curiam
In this Longshoremen’s and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act (LHWCA) case, a divided panel of this court held that an administrative law judge may not use transcribed testimony to pass on the credibility of a material witness. 631 F.2d 1190 (5th Cir. 1980). Because the logic of this holding could be said to apply to the making of credibility choices in a wide range of forums, we took this case en banc.
I
In May, 1972, Boland Marine & Manufacturing Company (“Boland”) hired Robert L. Pigrenet, petitioner herein. On Friday, *1093June 30, 1972, in the course of his employment for Boland in New Orleans,…
Also in this document: Dissent · Hatchett; Dissent · Tate.
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Central of Georgia Railway CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
- W.R.B. Corp. v. GeerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1963
- Gamble-Skogmo, Inc. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1954
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hudson C. Millar, Jr., and James Jerdan Bullard v. Federal Communications CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1983
- Pigrenet v. Boland Marine & Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981