# Opposition Brief — Easley v. Southern Shipbuilding Corp.

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_1057%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1992
- **Citation:** 503 U.S. 930

## Text

1992

| |} FILED
4 FEB ?1
No. 91-885 —
perics oF :
IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1991

STEVEN L. EASLEY,
Petitioner
¥,

SOUTHERN SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION,
Respondent

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

RESPONDENT’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

ROBERT H. MURPHY *

KENNETH J. SERVAY

DouGLAS L. GRUNDMEYER

CHAFFE, MCCALL, PHILLIPS, TOLER
& SARPY

2300 Energy Centre

1100 Poydras Street

New Orleans, Louisiana 70163-2300

(504) 585-7000

Attorneys for Respondent,
Southern Shipbuilding

* Counsel of Record Corporation

February 21, 1992

WILSON - EPEsS PRINTING Co., INC. - 789-0096 - WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001

|

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Respondent, Southern Shipbuilding Corporation, dis-
agrees with Petitioner’s statement of the questions pre-
sented for review. The questions presented for considera-
tion are:

e

Whether the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit and the district court correctly
applied the proper legal standards for determin-
ing seaman status under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.
$ 688, consistent with this Court’s recent opin-
ions in Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Gizoni, 502 U.S.
, 112 S.Ct. 486, 116 L.Ed.2d 405 (1991), and
McDermott Int'l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. .
111 S.Ct. 807, 112 L.Ed.2d 866 (1991)?

Whether summary judgment dismissing Petition-
er’s Jones Act and general maritime law claims
was appropriate, where no genuine issue of ma-
terial fact existed and where the courts below ap-
plied the proper legal standards concerning Peti-
tioner’s job status?

(i)

ii

LIST OF INTERESTED PERSONS
AND RULE 29.1 CERTIFICATION

The parties to the proceeding below were Petitioner-
Plaintiff, Steven L. Easley, Suzanne Easley (his wife),
and Respondent-Defendant, Southern Shipbuilding Cor-
poration.

Under this Court’s Rule 29.1, Respondent, Southern
Shipbuilding Corporation, certifies that it has no parent
companies and no subsidiaries.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW................. i
LIST OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND RULE 29.1
SE i a il
ey) bl | ee iv
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................... 5 ees 2
A. The Undisputed Facts _........ Goh LEA 2
B. The District Court Proceeding... 3
C. The Fifth Circuit’s Opinion .............0000-- 4
REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT ...................... 6
I. THE DECISIONS OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
AND THE DISTRICT COURT ARE CONSIST-
ENT WITH THIS COURT’S RECENT GIZONI
AND WILANDER DECISIONS ON SEAMAN
6 y))) a a 6
II. THIS COURT SHOULD REFUSE TO REVIEW
A PROPER SUMMARY JUDGMENT... 10
i 15

(iii)

iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Page

Alabama Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Co. v. Kininess,
554 F.2d 176 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S.

I IEE ol ssc.chs asennad cds sae Seuramcasahada Sek deln 15
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106

S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ............00002........ 11,12
Arbeeny v. McRoberts Protective Agency, 642 F.2d

672 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 836 (1981)... 15
Barrett v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 781 F.2d 1067

Ce FR, Ree tts Od cee 3, 6, 7, 10
Bullis v. Twentieth-Century Fox Film Corp., 474

pg i oh AS.) eee CCE ee 13

Campo v. Electro-Coal Transfer Corp., slip opinion
No. 89-3738 (April 23, 1990), 909 F.2d 1480
(Table), 1991 A.M.C. 2657 (5th Cir. 1990),
vacated and remanded, 60 U.S.L.W. 3477 (U.S.,

a Oe ee lind 9
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct.
2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ................................. 12

Easley v. Southern Shipbuilding Corp., 936 F.2d
839 (5th Cir.), rehearing denied, en banc, 943

of et aa 5 Menten keener rere 5, 8,9, 12
Fazio v. Lykes Brothers S.S. Co., Inc., 567 F.2d 301
SO Se es a ceeamamenaneen 13

Gizoni v. Southwest Marine, Inc., 909 F.2d 385 (9th
Cir. 1990), aff’d, 502 U.S. , 112 S.Ct. 486,

po BR SE UR) Renee 3
Graziano v. General Dynamics Corp., 663 F.2d 340
ee a IE ac a or et OO ae eee 15

Griffith v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 521
F.2d 31 (3rd Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S.

TE ira ae a es a Ril Dey BNE RS a 12
Labit v. Carey Salt Co., 421 F.2d 1333 (5th Cir.

REET INE ek OI TORE TY Bn Ne RUNS A 13
Lormand v. Superior Oil Co., 845 F.2d 536 (5th

Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1031 (1988)... 13
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Lawson, 94 F.2d 190

I SU got coer ae Sot ee ie ere 7

Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d
gS RR SPE EPs Seti ER MTS 12,14

v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page
McDermott Int'l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. ——,
111 S.Ct. 807, 112 L.Ed.2d 866 (1991) ................. passim
Miller v. Patton-Tully Transportation Co., 851 F.2d
5 RR er eaeres eye eres 13
Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Campo, 60 U.S.L.W.
BEE Cars. GA, Bk ED nediteceticiie een 9
Norton v. Warner Co., 321 U.S. 565, 64 S.Ct. 747,
ee Te CD henieeeee tices 7
Offshore Company v. Robison, 266 F.2d 769 (5th
SE aaseeecichcegece sooo eeaneinientaani a ccommnnerentne 6, 7
Pizzitolo v. Electro-Coal Transfer Corp., 812 F.2d
977 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1059
EI csacstcicanicea
i
7
=

eS Se

.
a ee ne aes SS) oo a a

as

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_1057%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.