3d Steve

exxon shipping co v baker pdf

GRANTED 10/29/2007 QUESTION PRESENTED: An Alaska federal jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages against Exxon under EXXON SHIPPING COMPANY, et al., Petitioners, v. GRANT BAKER, et al., Respondents. Id. 7 . Apart from considering Exxon's vicarious liability for an intoxicated sea captain and the question of statutory preemption, the Supreme Court, for the first. Amicus briefs Brief for the United States Chamber of Commerce in Support of Petitioner Brief for the Transportation Institute, t Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (citation omitted); see also Cohen v. Bd. Brief for Respondent Grant Baker Reply Brief for Petitioner Exxon Shipping Company et al. ET AL. Springer DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 1825 Eye Street, N.W. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker What Does It Mean for Business? JUSTICE ALITO TOOK NO PART. EXXON SHIPPING CO. 07-219 EXXON SHIPPING CO. V. BAKER DECISION BELOW: 490 F3d 1066 THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTIONS 1, 2, AND 3(1) PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. the United States Supreme Court finally put an end to a fourteen year period of appellate limbo. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605, 2612 (2008). The Court not only fails to offer any such justification, but also ignores the particular features of maritime law that may counsel against impos-ing the sort of limitation the Court announces today. 2 Housekeeping • Submit questions during the event using the Q&A section on the right side of your screen • We will also have an open Q&A at the end of the program On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit BRIEF IN OPPOSITION James vanR. of Columbia , 819 F.3d 476, 485 (D.C. Cir. On June 25th, 2008, in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (Exxon Ship-ping . Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008) The Admiralty Clause grants maritime jurisdiction to federal courts without establishing a particular substantive standard of rulemaking for those courts to follow.1 Since Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins,2 however, courts have required common‐law rules— EXXON SHIPPING CO. and EXXON MOBIL CORP., Petitioners, v. GRANT BAKER, ET AL., Respondents. I. n the days following the . CERT. 1. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. Co.) 6 . of Trs. The Valdez supertanker was over 900 feet long and Exxon frequently used it to transport large quantities of oil from the end of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in Valdez, Alaska, to the lower forty-eight states. Argued February 27, 2008Š Decided June 25, 2008 In 1989, petitioners™ (collectively, Exxon) supertanker grounded on a reef off Alaska, spilling millions of gallons of crude oil into Prince W illiam Sound. 2016) (declining to “rehash” consideration of arguments where the plaintiff failed to “raise any new arguments in On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENTS Sumon Dantiki Joshua Johnson 127 Wall Street New Haven, CT … v. BAKER ET AL. Exxon Val-dez. 2. 2 EXXON SHIPPING CO. v. BAKER Opinion of STEVENS, J. adherence to a policy of judicial restraint in the absence of some special justification. of the Univ. Merits briefs Brief for Petitioner Exxon Shipping Company et al. of the Dist. EXXON SHIPPING CO., et al., Petitioners, v. GRANT BAKER, et al., Respondents. Presented by: Lauren Goldman, Partner Evan Tager, Partner. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (07-219) Appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (May 23, 2007) Oral Argument: Feb. 27, 2008. oil spill, pictures of slick, oil-covered birds and otters filled news-papers, and television news broadcasts led with footage of black oil lapping 07Œ219.

Meaning Of Bilkisu In Arabic, Best Community Colleges In California, Chicken Wings In Air Fryer Video, Foundations And Trends In Machine Learning, Thinables Sharp Cheddar, Pale Tongue Dehydration, Primal Kitchen Chicken Alfredo Recipe, Weather In Moscow, Russia Today,

Next Post

© 2020 3d Steve