Jack Murphy Gordon

In this products liability case, plaintiff Edward Dalton sued Toyota Motor Sales after his Toyota Corolla caught fire while parked, causing him severe burns; he alleged the catalytic converter was defectively designed and that the owner's manual provided inadequate warnings about parking over flammable materials. After a jury returned a $250,000 verdict for the plaintiff, Toyota moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. The court granted the motion, holding that the plaintiff presented no expert testimony or other evidence on industry standards for catalytic converter design, no proof of causation, and no evidence establishing the inadequacy of the existing warning, which was prominently displayed in the manual. The court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that a directed verdict should have been entered at trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Cecil Edgar Smith, a mechanic employed by Oil Field Maintenance Service, Inc., who sued Texaco Inc. under the Jones Act for back injuries sustained while lifting a valve on Texaco's compressor barge, the REDFISH. Texaco moved for summary judgment, arguing that the REDFISH was not a vessel under the Jones Act, so Smith lacked seaman status. The court granted the motion, concluding that the REDFISH was not a vessel because it was a submerged, fixed structure whose purpose was gas compression rather than transportation on water, lacking navigational features and similar to other non-vessel compressor barges in precedent like Blanchard.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a hotel guest who sued the Fairmont Roosevelt Hotel for the loss of jewelry stolen from her room during a burglary after she was unable to return the items to a safe deposit box upon late arrival. The court addressed the hotel's liability under Louisiana Civil Code articles governing innkeepers, including the applicability of a statutory cap following a related state supreme court decision. It found that the guest had registered, used the safe deposit box previously, and that the hotel had provided the required facilities and posted conspicuous notice of the liability limit. The court concluded that the hotel's maximum liability was $100 regardless of any negligence.

propertytorts & liability

This case is a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a state capital conviction and death sentence, with the primary claim being ineffective assistance of counsel at both the guilt-innocence and sentencing phases. The district court reviewed the full state record, conducted evidentiary hearings before a magistrate on the counsel claims, and considered the magistrate's report along with the petitioner's objections. The court made a de novo determination that counsel provided effective assistance meeting constitutional minima, rejected the objections as meritless, and addressed related Eighth Amendment arguments concerning mitigating evidence. It concluded that the Constitution permits imposition of the death penalty and does not require a lesser sentence based on any particular mitigating evidence. The court therefore denied the petition and dismissed the suit.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a breach of contract claim by Louisiana Power & Light Co. against Allegheny Ludlum Industries, Inc. for failing to supply condenser tubing as agreed under a 1974 contract governed by New York law. Allegheny sought price increases due to rising material and labor costs, declined to provide written assurances of performance when requested under UCC § 2-609, and offered to perform only at a higher price, prompting LP&L to obtain cover from another supplier. The court granted LP&L's motion for summary judgment on liability, finding a breach and rejecting Allegheny's defenses of commercial impracticability, mutual mistake, and bad faith based on the undisputed facts showing no excuse for nonperformance. Summary judgment was denied on the unconscionability defense and the amount of damages, which remain for trial.

business & regulatoryprocedure

William H. Shaffer filed a pro se complaint seeking to enjoin the IRS and his employer Amoco from withholding taxes on his wages after he submitted a W-4 form claiming exemption under IRC § 3402(n) based on no anticipated tax liability. The district court heard motions for a preliminary injunction and to dismiss, then granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The ruling was based on sovereign immunity, which bars suits against the United States absent an explicit waiver, the Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S.C. § 7421), which prohibits injunctions against tax collection, and the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201), which excludes federal tax matters from declaratory relief. These doctrines deprived the court of jurisdiction, so it did not address the underlying validity of the withholding or the W-4 form.

taxesprocedurefederal power

The case concerned a June 1978 collision in the Gulf of Mexico between the anchored shrimp trawler JET SET, owned and operated by plaintiff Clifton Davis, and the crew boat COALINGA owned by Superior Oil Company; Davis sued for damages and Superior counterclaimed. After an earlier recovery of damages, the trial addressed only liability, focusing on whether the JET SET displayed required anchor lights and the vessels' compliance with navigation rules. The court made detailed findings of fact about the JET SET's lighting arrangement (including a non-all-round white light and conflicting testimony on which lights were illuminated), the moonless night conditions, and the COALINGA's approach, while reciting COLREGS Rules 26, 30, and 5 on lighting for anchored and fishing vessels and the duty to maintain a lookout. Based on these facts and the regulatory requirements, the court addressed liability for the allision.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved unions, pension funds, and individual workers suing construction companies Pratt-Farnsworth and Halmar, along with contractor associations, alleging that the defendants conspired to avoid collective bargaining agreements by creating non-union entities and favoring open-shop contractors, in violation of Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, ERISA, and federal antitrust laws. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The core reasoning was that Section 301 claims require a direct violation of an existing collective bargaining agreement between an employer and a labor organization, which was not properly alleged; ERISA claims did not fit the facts presented; and antitrust claims were barred by labor exemptions from antitrust liability or by federal preemption under the National Labor Relations Act.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved the Zemurray Foundation, a private foundation, challenging an excise tax assessment under 26 U.S.C. § 4940 on the capital gain from its 1974 sale of an undivided half-interest in timberland. The IRS contended the gain constituted net investment income subject to the tax, while the foundation argued the land had not been used to produce interest, dividends, rents, or royalties during its ownership period. The district court held for the foundation, ruling that only gains from property actually used for those specified income types qualify as taxable net investment income under the statute and regulations. It therefore ordered a refund of the $136,876.73 paid plus interest, finding the assessment improper based on the plain language of section 4940(c) and the stipulated facts showing no such income production from the land.

taxespropertybusiness & regulatory

This civil rights case involved Sheila Myers, an assistant district attorney in Orleans Parish, who alleged that District Attorney Harry Connick terminated her employment because she circulated a questionnaire to fellow assistants addressing office conditions, morale, transfer policies, and political pressures. Connick maintained that the termination stemmed from Myers's refusal to accept a reassignment to a different court section. Following a bench trial, the court applied First Amendment precedents such as Pickering v. Board of Education to assess whether the questionnaire addressed matters of public concern and whether its distribution substantially interfered with workplace functions, making detailed findings on the sequence of events, Myers's performance record, and the questionnaire's content and distribution.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

This case involved a welder employed by Houma Welders who was injured falling from an offshore platform owned by Mesa Petroleum; the employee sued Mesa for negligence and platform defects, Houma intervened to recover workers' compensation payments under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, and Mesa filed a third-party claim seeking indemnity from Houma based on alleged breaches of safety rules. The court granted Houma's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the indemnity claim. The core reasoning was that Section 905(a) of the Act makes the employer's compensation liability exclusive and bars tort-based indemnity claims arising on account of the employee's injury, whether framed as duties owed to the employee or recharacterized as independent obligations to the platform owner, absent an express contractual indemnity provision. The court rejected Mesa's reliance on Holden v. Placid Oil as inconsistent with Fifth Circuit precedent such as ODECO v. Berry Bros.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns an international letter of credit issued by Citizens & Southern International Bank at the request of Cappaert Enterprises to support financing for a joint venture in Kuwait, with the Bank of Kuwait and the Middle East as beneficiary. Cappaert sought to enjoin payment under the letter of credit, alleging fraud in the underlying transaction after the court had previously granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. After a hearing, the court denied permanent injunctive relief, finding that Cappaert failed to produce legally sufficient evidence of fraud. The decision rested on Louisiana law requiring clear and convincing proof of fraud rather than a mere preponderance, along with Cappaert's inability to satisfy the standards for irreparable injury, balance of harms, and public interest necessary for an injunction.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case was a Title VII class action filed by Robert Booth, a former black silver teller at National American Bank, alleging racial discrimination in the bank's employment practices on behalf of himself and a certified class of black applicants and employees since 1965. After dismissing other claims and parties, the court conducted a liability trial focusing on the plaintiff's termination following repeated coin shortages and broader statistical evidence of hiring patterns. The court reviewed the relevant labor market for statistical comparisons under precedents like Hazelwood, assessed whether disparities established a prima facie case, and considered whether limited live testimony from applicants could prevent effective rebuttal by the defendant.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case was a habeas corpus petition by Carlos Marcello seeking review of a 1976 Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying suspension of deportation from a 1961 order based on a 1938 marijuana conviction and illegal reentry. The Board ruled Marcello statutorily ineligible for lacking good moral character in the preceding ten years and alternatively denied relief in its discretion. Marcello argued the 1961 deportation to Guatemala was unlawfully executed without proper notice to counsel, which if invalidated would allow consideration of his permanent residence since 1910 and potentially grant relief. The district court limited its review to the administrative record under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(9), addressed the validity of the 1961 proceedings and related issues, and after briefing and argument confirmed its tentative conclusions on the merits without finding error.

immigration

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation sued multiple defendants, including producer groups, royalty interest holders, and surface owners, alleging that they wrongfully diverted natural gas from reserves dedicated to Columbia's interstate pipeline system through two gas purchase contracts and related FPC certificates of public convenience and necessity. The claims included violations of the Natural Gas Act's abandonment procedures, breaches of contract notice provisions, an overall scheme to deprive Columbia of its rights, and constructive fraud by certain defendants. After pretrial summary judgments dismissed several counts and parties, the court at trial addressed the remaining issues of whether defendants violated the Natural Gas Act under Count I and whether Allied Chemical committed constructive fraud under Count V. The court entered judgment for all defendants on both counts, reasoning that the gas transfers did not require FPC abandonment approval under the circumstances, the contracts permitted the challenged actions, and there was no evidence of a fraudulent scheme or concealment by Allied Chemical.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This admiralty case arose from damage to a pipeline in which the SLAM group held a 90% interest, caused when a barge crew negligently "dogged" an anchor while working near the pipeline at Signal Platform A. The court had earlier determined that the barge owner's employee was solely negligent, that Sun was liable to SLAM under a contractual indemnity clause (offset by Sun's 10% pipeline ownership), that McDermott was liable to Sun under its own indemnity agreement (subject to clause 15 exceptions), and that the barge owner owed tort indemnity to both Sun and McDermott. In the damages phase, the court quantified SLAM's losses, denied the barge owner's statutory limitation of liability under 46 U.S.C. § 181 et seq. to the vessel's value, allowed certain direct actions against insurance, and allocated specific damage items according to the contracts and ownership shares.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a March 1972 maritime collision between the M/V Overseas Valdes and the tug Hard Work towing the barge Sun-Chem 900, which carried styrene cargo owned by Firestone. After previously allocating fault 20% to the Overseas Valdes and 80% to the tug, the court addressed the remaining contractual issues among Alamo (tug owner), Texas (charterer), Firestone, and Maritime (ship operator), including a barge charter party with insurance, waiver of subrogation, and indemnity clauses. The court reviewed the parties' contracts, deposition testimony, and precedents such as the Bisso doctrine and the Harter Act to determine the validity and application of these provisions to claims for cargo damage and cross-indemnity. It made findings on the formation and performance of the Firestone-Texas sales contract and the Texas-Alamo charter, noting that Firestone had knowledge of key terms and had insured the cargo.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryproperty

In this case, a seaman plaintiff sued his employer under the Jones Act for negligence and under general maritime law for unseaworthiness, maintenance, and cure, seeking a preliminary injunction to increase his daily maintenance payments from $8 to at least $15. The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction. It held that injunctive relief is an improper procedural mechanism for resolving the appropriate rate of maintenance. The core reasoning was that maintenance lacks a fixed statutory minimum unlike the FLSA minimum wage, must be assessed case-by-case based on reasonable costs, and only the Secretary of Labor (not individual employees) may seek FLSA-style injunctions.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a maritime tort claim by Offshore Telephone Company against the owners and charterers of two supply vessels, M/V WATERBUCK and M/V STATE POINT, for damage to a submerged telephone cable in the Gulf of Mexico caused when one vessel dragged its anchor over the cable during oil drilling operations by Mobil Oil. The court found that Offshore had a lease and communications agreement with Mobil under which Offshore agreed to protect or relocate its cables at its own expense during Mobil's normal operations, not to hold Mobil responsible for resulting damage, and to indemnify Mobil against related claims even if due to Mobil's negligence. The court also found that Offshore had disregarded prior notices to mark the cable with buoys. Based on these contractual provisions and the facts surrounding the anchoring incident, the court concluded that the vessel owners and charterers were not liable for the cable damage.

torts & liabilitypropertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a former sheriff of Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, who sued a federal ATF agent and the United States, alleging that the agent's investigation into suspected federal gun, liquor, and gambling violations interfered with his reelection campaign through defamation, leaks to the press, and attempted assault or false arrest, causing added campaign costs and reputational harm. The plaintiff also claimed the United States was negligent in hiring and supervising the agent. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaints. It held that the agent's undisputed actions during the investigation fell within the outer perimeters of his official duties, entitling him to immunity, and that the Federal Tort Claims Act barred claims against the United States because defamation is exempted and the complaint alleged only attempts at assault, battery, false arrest, or imprisonment rather than completed torts.

civil rightsfederal powertorts & liabilityelections