Alvin Benjamin Rubin

This case involved a maritime collision between the vessel Helena, owned by Sincere Navigation Corp., and the U.S. Coast Guard vessel White Alder, leading to personal injury and property damage claims. After appeals and a Supreme Court ruling changing the damages allocation from equal division to proportional fault, the court found the Helena 35% at fault and the White Alder 65% at fault, with final judgment entered in 1977. The court held that the United States was not liable for any pre-judgment interest on the amounts owed, because the Public Vessels Act bars interest prior to the rendition of judgment unless provided by contract. It determined that interest runs only from the date of the final judgment that conclusively establishes the parties' liabilities, not from earlier interlocutory or amended decrees. Trial and appeal costs were apportioned 35% to Sincere and 65% to the United States based on the fault ratio.

proceduretorts & liability

This case was a Section 1983 action in which a jury found that police officers arrested the plaintiff, a Continental Airlines ticket agent, without probable cause on charges including disturbing the peace and resisting an officer, awarding $10,000 in general damages and $10,000 in punitive damages against the officers and their insurer. The insurer moved to amend the judgment to name it as a defendant and specify the damages breakdown, which the court granted, and also sought judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on grounds that the policy did not cover punitive damages and that such coverage violated public policy. The court denied the coverage motions, holding that the policy's broad insuring language covering damages "because of, but not limited to, negligent acts, errors, or omissions" and defining personal injury to include deliberate torts like false arrest and assault and battery unambiguously included punitive damages. The court further reasoned that Louisiana law and public policy did not prohibit liability insurance for punitive damages when a police department purchases it to protect employees in performing their duties.

civil rightstorts & liability

The case involved a plaintiff who, after winning a personal injury lawsuit against a former employer, was fired by a new employer and subsequently denied work by other oil industry companies due to his litigation history, which was tracked in a shared industry database. He brought a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), the federal conspiracy to obstruct justice statute, claiming a private conspiracy to impede justice and injure him for enforcing his legal rights. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the statute's relevant clauses require a conspiracy motivated by intent to deny equal protection of the laws through class-based animus, which was not shown here. Instead, the employers' actions were driven by economic self-interest in avoiding potentially unreliable or injured workers, without the requisite discriminatory purpose tied to equal protection.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case is a Truth in Lending Act class action brought by Wendell Jones against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company on behalf of consumers who entered into retail installment sale agreements using a standard disclosure form at one of its New Orleans stores. The dispute centered on whether Goodyear failed to adequately disclose the vendor’s privilege security interest created by Louisiana law on purchased movable property and on identifying which transactions qualified as consumer credit subject to the Act’s requirements. The court granted partial summary judgment establishing the disclosure violation for the class representative’s transaction and for other qualifying consumer purchases where the privilege applied, set up a process for the parties to determine consumer status for remaining class members with a magistrate hearing on disputes, and awarded statutory damages of double the finance charge per prevailing plaintiff subject to a $500,000 aggregate cap after weighing the number of affected persons and the persistence of noncompliance. The reasoning relied on the Act and Regulation Z’s mandate to clearly describe the type of security interest retained, the absence of any contrary evidence from Goodyear on the representative’s transaction, and statutory factors for determining damages.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Beasley, the defendant, convicted after a second trial of conspiracy to defraud the United States and filing false claims in connection with a Title IV-A Social Security Act program, filed a second motion for a new trial under Rule 33 based on testimony given by two witnesses in a later civil proceeding. The court denied the motion, holding that the testimony did not qualify as newly discovered evidence because the witnesses were known and available at the time of trial, the defense made a deliberate strategic choice not to call them, and the prosecution had no obligation under Brady v. Maryland to disclose its interview notes or the prosecutors' impressions of how the witnesses might testify. The court further found that the evidence would not have created reasonable doubt even if presented.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was a suit by Southern Insurance Company to recover unpaid premiums collected by its Louisiana sales agent under an agency agreement. Corporate liability was conceded, but individual defendant W.C. Moore contested personal liability for the debt. The court held Moore personally liable for $120,695.39. It reasoned that the contract, governed by Texas law, was executed by Moore individually and listed the corporation only as a trade name under which he did business (d/b/a), making him the owner responsible for the obligations without qualification or limitation on his signature.

business & regulatory

This case arose from a collision on the Mississippi River between the tanker Frosta, piloted by a member of the New Orleans and Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, and the ferry George Prince, resulting in numerous deaths and injuries. Plaintiffs sued the association, claiming it was negligent in screening the pilot's competence, admitting him to membership, and failing to instruct him on navigational rules. The court granted the association's motion for summary judgment, holding that the association owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs. The reasoning relied on the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which imposes no duty to control a third person's conduct absent a special relationship such as employment or partnership; the association was a voluntary nonprofit with limited control over pilots once assigned to vessels, and it neither employed the pilots nor acted as their partnership.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a dispute over mineral rights in a tract of land (the Vezina tract) where plaintiff Charles Read claimed that Phillips Petroleum had drained natural gas from it via a well on an adjacent tract leased to Phillips, and that lessor Wilba Vezina had failed to perform his legal duties under the mineral lease and the prior sale contract reserving mineral interests. Read sued individually in federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction, but his siblings held identical interests from the same transaction, including at least one Louisiana citizen like defendant Vezina. The court decided to dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that the siblings were persons who should be joined under Rule 19(a) because their absence risked multiple litigation and inconsistent obligations for the defendants, and under Rule 19(b) the action could not proceed in equity and good conscience without them as their joinder would destroy complete diversity.

procedureproperty

In Crown Zellerbach Corp. v. Marshall, a company sought a preliminary injunction to stop the government from denying it future federal contracts unless it adopted a specific seniority system for female employees as part of affirmative action compliance under Executive Order 11246. The system would grant women company seniority when bidding into certain jobs, potentially conflicting with existing collective bargaining agreements that used job or plant seniority. After the government conducted a pre-award review finding sex discrimination and proposed remedies including goals, timetables, and seniority adjustments, Crown argued it was entitled to a hearing before such conditions could be imposed. The court denied the injunction, holding that the executive branch may validly refuse to contract with a bidder whose workforce policies violate governmental nondiscrimination requirements without first providing a hearing on those conditions for future contracts.

labor & employmentcivil rightsbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a habeas corpus petition by Mark D. Smith, who was sixteen at the time of his 1975 first-degree murder conviction in Louisiana and initially sentenced to death. After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the state's mandatory death penalty, the Louisiana Supreme Court resentenced him to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for twenty years. Smith contended that the life sentence violated the ex post facto clause because, as a juvenile, the only punishments available at the time of the offense were death or juvenile detention, and that it violated due process for lack of explicit legislative authority. The court denied the petition, holding that life imprisonment was not a greater penalty than the death sentence authorized by the original statute and that the statute supplied sufficient authority for the sentence imposed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Pittman Construction Company seeking a refund of federal income taxes after the IRS revoked the qualified status of its pension plan and disallowed deductions for contributions made in fiscal years 1970 and 1971. The pension plan included a principal officer and shareholder who exceeded the maximum qualifying age of 57 due to an erroneous birthdate listed in plan documents, while excluding four other employees over that age, which the IRS determined constituted discrimination in favor of a highly compensated employee under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. The court upheld the District Director's retroactive revocation of the prior favorable determination letter, finding it reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious given the plan's failure to meet nondiscrimination requirements, and granted summary judgment for the government.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

In this Chapter X reorganization proceeding for Multiponics, Inc., Citibank, acting as indenture trustee for $3.5 million in subordinated debentures, sought reimbursement of $576,123.25 in attorneys' fees and expenses for services rendered over six years under the Trust Indenture Act's prudent man standard. The court determined that only a portion of the services—primarily those aiding the estate through investigation of insiders that led to subordination of certain claims—qualified for payment from the limited estate funds of about $2.3 million, while services mainly benefiting debenture holders, such as monitoring and advice to them, did not. It reasoned that compensation from the estate requires services to be reasonably necessary for administration and protection of the trust, distinct from the plan, and that expenses must be minimized by using local counsel where possible. Accordingly, the court allowed Citibank a total of $150,000 from the estate, inclusive of fees and costs.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a motion by a Norwegian mutual protection and indemnity club (Skuld) to dismiss a Louisiana diversity suit arising from a 1976 Mississippi River vessel collision, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the non-resident insurer that had not solicited business or maintained an office in the state. The court denied the motion to quash service and dismiss, holding that Louisiana courts would assert jurisdiction and that service on the insurer's local representative and the Secretary of State was valid. The reasoning centered on the regular and substantial contacts created by dozens of Skuld-insured vessels entering Louisiana ports annually, combined with the local law firm's activities beyond pure litigation (such as arranging medical care, bonds, and security), which satisfied both state long-arm requirements and federal due process standards in diversity cases. This ruling permitted injured parties to pursue direct actions against the insurer under the Louisiana direct action statute, potentially affecting the application of the federal Limitation of Liability Act.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case concerns claims for wrongful death and survival damages under general maritime law arising from a 1976 collision between the M/V George Prince and the M/T Frosta, in which the ferry pilot Egidio Paul Auletto died along with many passengers. The administratrix of Auletto's estate moved to dismiss the claims against his succession, arguing that the actions abated with his death. The court denied the motion, holding that both the Moragne wrongful death action and the survival action for the decedent's pre-death damages continue against the tortfeasor's estate. The reasoning relies on the need for uniform federal maritime remedies that do not depend on the fortuitous survival of the wrongdoer, drawing from principles of uniformity and liberality in admiralty law established in Moragne and subsequent cases.

torts & liability

The case concerned third-party claims by shipbuilder Avondale against vessel designer F&G and its president Goldman for indemnity, contribution, and tort damages arising from defects in the main reduction gears of LASH vessels constructed under contract for PFEL. The court addressed summary judgment motions challenging whether the claims could proceed under implied contractual indemnity per Ryan v. Pan-Atlantic or active-passive tort indemnity, and whether laches barred contribution or tort actions given notice of gear problems as early as 1972. It reasoned that Ryan indemnity rests on breach of an implied contractual duty rather than tort, examined the sequence of sea trials, repairs, and correspondence among the parties, and analyzed Louisiana rules on solidary obligations to determine that contribution could apply even across contract and tort claims if parties shared liability for the same defects.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose in the Chapter X reorganization of Multiponics, Inc., a Delaware farming corporation, and concerned the priority of debt claims asserted by former directors and entities they controlled. The court subordinated the claim of director Carl Biehl (and related advances) to the claims of other creditors while leaving the claim of Machinery Rental, Inc. unsubordinated. Subordination rested on the equitable principle that directors owe fiduciary duties to the corporation; the Special Master found, and the court upheld, that the directors had inadequately capitalized the company at formation and later approved imprudent, non-arm's-length acquisitions that harmed the debtor's financial position.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This tax refund case concerned whether a U.S. citizen tugboat captain working in the North Sea beyond the three-mile territorial limit qualified as present in a foreign country under 26 U.S.C. § 911(a)(2) for an earned-income exclusion. The court held that the plaintiff was not in a foreign country during the relevant period and denied the refund claim. The reasoning centered on Treasury Regulation § 1.911-2(f), which defines a foreign country as territory under another government's sovereignty, including airspace; international conventions like the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf establish that waters above the shelf remain high seas without full coastal-state sovereignty; and the recognized three-mile limit for territorial jurisdiction, as confirmed by U.S. State Department positions and case law, does not extend to the North Sea areas at issue.

taxesfederal power

In this case, Volkswagen of America leased property from Robertson for storing vehicles, which were damaged by flooding during Hurricane Carmen in 1974 due to heavy rains and closure of the gravity drainage system. Volkswagen moved for summary judgment, arguing that Robertson breached his obligations under Louisiana law by failing to warn of or address a known defect in the property's drainage. The court granted the motion, holding Robertson liable because the property's potential for flooding under certain hurricane conditions constituted a defect that he knew or should have known about from prior correspondence with levee officials, and the lease did not shift responsibility for major drainage measures to the tenant. The reasoning relied on Louisiana Civil Code provisions requiring lessors to guarantee against vices and defects that could prevent the property's intended use, even if unknown at the time of leasing, provided they do not stem from the lessee's fault.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved a diver tender injured while working for Buck Steber under a U.S. Navy contract to remove wrecks from the Suez Canal; he sued Buck Steber under the Jones Act and the United States for maritime negligence, demanding a jury trial. The court granted the United States' motion to strike the jury demand, holding that the Suits in Admiralty Act provides the exclusive remedy against the sovereign and does not authorize jury trials. As to Buck Steber, the court found the plaintiff was not a Jones Act employee entitled to a jury because he was an employee of an independent contractor and not a crew member of the relevant vessel, and indicated it would grant summary judgment dismissing the claims against the company.

proceduretorts & liabilitylabor & employmentfederal power

The case involved National Marine Service seeking indemnity or contribution from Gulf Oil and Hess Pipeline after settling a personal injury claim by its Jones Act seaman employee Cross, who was injured while using a ladder to access a dock at Hess's ship terminal during cargo loading under a contract with Gulf; Hess filed a reciprocal claim against National for its own settlement payment to Cross. The court ruled against all parties' claims, dismissing National's contract-based indemnity against Gulf, its tort indemnity against Gulf and Hess, and its contribution request from Hess, as well as Hess's indemnity and contribution claims against National. The reasoning centered on National's failure to show that Gulf or Hess breached duties under the contract or tort law sufficient for indemnity, the open and obvious nature of the access risks that National had assumed, National's own negligence in supervising the ladder use and the employee's conduct, and the lack of joint tortfeasor status or implied warranties by Hess toward Cross.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment