| 词条 | Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc. |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc. |ArgueDate=November 29 |ArgueYear=2000 |DecideDate=February 21 |DecideYear=2001 |FullName=James F. Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine Incorporated |USVol=531 |USPage=438 |ParallelCitations=121 S. Ct. 993; 148 L. Ed. 2d 931 |Prior=On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit |Subsequent= |Holding=A District Court did not abuse discretion when it dissolved an injunction under the LLA, which prevented a seaman from suing a vessel owner in state court. |SCOTUS=1994-2005 |Majority=O'Connor |JoinMajority=unanimous |Concurrence= |JoinConcurrence= |Dissent= |JoinDissent= |Dissent2= |Dissent3= |LawsApplied=Limitation of Liability Act }} Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438 (2001), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving an injunction under the Limitation of Liability Act and whether a district court acted properly in dissolving it. BackgroundIn 1998, James F. Lewis, a deckhand aboard a ship owned by Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., claimed that he was injured when he tripped over a wire on the boat. Lewis then sued Lewis & Clark in Illinois County Court, for personal injuries claiming negligence under the Jones Act. Lewis & Clark had already filed a complaint for exoneration from, or limitation of, liability in the District Court under the Limitation of Liability Act (Act). Subsequently, the court approved a surety bond of $450,000, representing Lewis & Clark's interest in the vessel, ordered that any claim related to the incident be filed with the court within a specified period, and enjoined the filing or prosecution of any suits related to the incident. The injunction prevented Lewis from litigating his personal injury claims in state court and he moved to dissolve it. Ultimately, the court dissolved the injunction. The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.[1] Opinion of the CourtJustice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the unanimous opinion of the Court which reversed the Eighth Circuit's decision.[2] The Court held that because state courts may adjudicate claims like Lewis' against vessel owners so long as the owner's right to seek limitation of liability is protected, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the District Court's decision to dissolve the injunction. Writing for the Court, Justice O'Connor rejected the respondent's proposal to make "run of the mill personal injury actions involving vessels a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction except where the claimant happens to seek a jury trial."[3] See also
References1. ^{{ussc|name=Lewis vs. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc.|volume=531|page=438|pin=442-44|year=2001}}. 2. ^[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6371222633273929887&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr 531 U.S. 438] at 449. 3. ^[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6371222633273929887&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr 531 U.S. 438] at 456. External links
| case=Lewis vs. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., {{ussc|531|438|2001|el=no}} | cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1331.ZO.html | courtlistener = | findlaw=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/531/438.html | justia=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/438/ | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep531/usrep531438/usrep531438.pdf | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-1331 }}{{DEFAULTSORT:Lewis v. Lewis and Clark Marine, Inc.}} 5 : United States Supreme Court cases|2001 in United States case law|United States admiralty case law|Maritime safety|United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。