stating that the defense’s expert cannot explain why the phone 18 was found in defendant’s car, defendant was in that parking lot that night, defendant was 19 sweating, and defendant matched the robber’s description
How later courts described this case
- stating that the defense’s expert cannot explain why the phone 18 was found in defendant’s car, defendant was in that parking lot that night, defendant was 19 sweating, and defendant matched the robber’s description
- holding that Heck did not bar the § 1983 claim because the 14 conviction arose from a no contest plea and did not depend on the legality of the challenged 15 search
- holding a pilot who flew over the ocean as a fish spotter was covered under the LHWCA
- holding that clause indemnifying party "for losses `howsoever arising' [was not] sufficiently clear and unequivocal to shift liability for Chevron's negligence onto Sea Savage"
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Carl Bienvenu v. Texaco, Inc. Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor Insurance Company of North America, 164 F.3d 901 (1999)
13 F.3d 888 (5th Cir.1994), overruled on other grounds by Bienvenu v. Texaco, Inc., 164 F.3d 901 (5th Cir.1999).
The opinion
ROBERT M. PARKER, District Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
I concur with the majority opinion, with the exception of the remittitur portion contained in Section III., C., 1., Damages; Pain and Suffering. I am persuaded that the district court’s assessment of the facts of this case as it relates to the award of damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 for pain and suffering is not only not clearly erroneous, but falls within the bounds of reasonable compensation under the circumstances. I therefore limit my dissent to the remittitur ordered.