You are here:
  • Home
  • »
  • Products
  • »
  • Jones Laughlin Steel Corp v Pfeifer 462 U S 523

Jones Laughlin Steel Corp v Pfeifer 462 U S 523

Steel machining - Customized shape and size →Click on

Ordinary Steel structure OEM&ODM →Click on

Pressure vessel/large tank processing →Click on

Other steel structure processing →Click on

  • Product Description

{{meta.fullTitle}} - {{meta.siteName}}

Jones Laughlin Steel Corporation v.Pfeifer.Media.Oral Argument - February 28,1983; Opinions.Syllabus ; View Case ; Petitioner Jones Laughlin Steel Corporation .Respondent Pfeifer .Docket no.82-131 .Decided by Burger Court .Lower court United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit .Citation 462 US 523 (1983) Argued.Feb 28 Year 1983 US Supreme Court Cases FindLawSearch U.S.Supreme Court Cases By Year 1983.Welcome to FindLaw's searchable database of U.S.Supreme Court decisions since 1760.Supreme Court opinions are browsable by year and U.S.Reports volume number,and are searchable by party name,case title,citation,full text and docket number.William N.Disabatino v.National Railroad Passenger Corp Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer,462 U.S.523 (6 times) No.81-1928,678 F.2d 453 (3rd Cir.1982) (2 times) John Ballantine v.

Video of Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer

Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer.Facts Respondent Pfiefer,a longshoreman employee of Petitioner,Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.,brought a negligence action against Petitioner under the Longshoremen's Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.Respondent claimed that he was entitled to damages for Petitioner's negligence in addition to receiving workers' compensation for being injured inVideo of Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer.Facts Respondent Pfiefer,a longshoreman employee of Petitioner,Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.,brought a negligence action against Petitioner under the Longshoremen's Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.Respondent claimed that he was entitled to damages for Petitioner's negligence in addition to receiving workers' compensation for being injured inUS Supreme Court Volumes FindLawU.S.Supreme Court Cases Volume 462.Welcome to FindLaw's searchable database of U.S.Supreme Court decisions for Volume 462.Supreme Court opinions are browsable by year and U.S.Reports volume number,and are searchable by party name,case title,citation,full text and docket number.

The Effect of Inflation on Damages for Future Losses - FindLaw

The correctness of this decision was recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer (1983) 462 U.S.523,541; 76 L.Ed.2d 768; 103 S.Ct.2541.Similarly,United States v.English,supra,was followed and approved in Sauers v.The Burger Court Opinion Writing DatabaseNo.82-131 JONES LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION,ETC.,PETITIONER v.HOWARD E.PFEIFER ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT [May ,1983] JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.Respondent was injured in the course of his employment as a loading helper on a coal barge.Subrogating Longshore Payments Against Jones ActJun 27,2014 Jones Laughlin Steel Corp v Pfeifer 462 U S 523#0183;Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer,462 U.S.523 (1983).However,if the claimant is employed by the vessel to provide stevedoring services,no third-party action is permitted if the injury is caused by the negligence of persons providing stevedoring services to the vessel.

Subrogating Longshore Payments Against Jones Act

Jun 27,2014 Jones Laughlin Steel Corp v Pfeifer 462 U S 523#0183;Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer,462 U.S.523 (1983).However,if the claimant is employed by the vessel to provide stevedoring services,no third-party action is permitted if the injury is caused by the negligence of persons providing stevedoring services to the vessel.Stokes v.United States,No.19-7034 (10th Cir.2020 Jul 29,2020 Jones Laughlin Steel Corp v Pfeifer 462 U S 523#0183;An employee of a federally supported health center failed to properly administer a drug to Alexis Stokes while she gave birth to Baby Stokes.As a result,Baby Stokes suffered from cerebral palsy and spastic quadriplegia, along with other disabilities,and his life expectancy was 22 years.The district court awarded damages to Baby Boy D.S.(Baby Stokes) and his parents,Alexis Stokes Stewart v.Dutra Constr.Co.: 543 U.S.481 (2005 Roper v.United States,368 U.S.20,21,23 (1961); West v.United States,361 U.S.118,122 (1959).The Court did not mean that the in navigation requirement stood apart from Jones Laughlin Steel Corp v Pfeifer 462 U S 523#167;3,such that a vessel for purposes of Jones Laughlin Steel Corp v Pfeifer 462 U S 523#167;3 might nevertheless not be a vessel in navigation for purposes of the Jones Act or

Some results are removed in response to a notice of local law requirement.For more information,please see here.Previous123456NextWilliam N.Disabatino v.National Railroad Passenger Corp

Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer,462 U.S.523 (6 times) No.81-1928,678 F.2d 453 (3rd Cir.1982) (2 times) John Ballantine v.Some results are removed in response to a notice of local law requirement.For more information,please see here.12345NextThe Burger Court Opinion Writing DatabaseJones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer 462 U.S.523 (1983) Paul J.Wahlbeck,George Washington University James F.Spriggs,II,Washington University in St.Louis Forrest Maltzman,George Washington UniversitySome results are removed in response to a notice of local law requirement.For more information,please see here.

STEWART V.DUTRA CONSTR.CO.

Feb 22,2005 Jones Laughlin Steel Corp v Pfeifer 462 U S 523#0183;Roper v.United States,368 U.S.20,21,23 (1961); West v.United States,361 U.S.118,122 (1959).The Court did not mean that the in navigation requirement stood apart from Jones Laughlin Steel Corp v Pfeifer 462 U S 523#167;3,such that a vessel for purposes of Jones Laughlin Steel Corp v Pfeifer 462 U S 523#167;3 might nevertheless not be a vessel in navigation for purposes of the Jones Act or the LHWCA.See,e.g PFEIFER v.JONES LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP.Citing Cases711 F.2d 570 - PFEIFER v.JONES LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP.,United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit.722 F.2d 114 - CULVER v.SLATER BOAT CO.,United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit.462 U.S.523 - JONES LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP.v.PFEIFER,Supreme Court of United States.724 F.2d 394 - DiSABATINO v.PFEIFER v.JONES LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP.Citing Cases462 U.S.523 - JONES LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP.v.PFEIFER,Supreme Court of United States.724 F.2d 394 - DiSABATINO v.NATIONAL R.R.PASSENGER CORP.,United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit.734 F.2d 1408 - BLOOMFIELD FINANCIAL CORP.v.NAT.HOME LIFE,United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit.

Opinions from 462 U.S.OpenJurist

Opinions and other transactions from the United States Supreme Court.462 US 1 Pickett v.Brown.462 US 1017 Idaho Evans v.Oregon 462 US 176 Exxon Corporation v.Eagerton Exchange Oil and Gas Corporation. 462 US 523 Jones Laughlin Steel Corporation v.E Pfeifer.462 US 554 Texas v.New Mexi 462 US 579 United States v.Villamonte-MarquezMorgan v.Monessen Southwestern Ry.- US Law,Case Law During the pendency of this appeal,the United States Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit's decision in Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer,462 U.S.523,103 S.Ct.2541,76 L.Ed.2d 768 (1983).At oral argument in this case,the parties' were instructed to file supplemental briefs addressing the recent decision of the Court in McCARTHY v.U.S 870 F.2d 1499 9th Cir.Judgment Cf.Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer,462 U.S.523,546-47,103 S.Ct.2541,2555,76 L.Ed.2d 768 (1983) (suggesting caution be used in determining a discount rate,given the uncertainties of future economic events).B.The Noneconomic Awards

MONESSEN SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY,Appellant v

In Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer,462 U.S.523,538,n.22,103 S.Ct.2541,2551,n.22,76 L.Ed.2d 768 (1983),the Court instructed 39 It is Jones Laughlin Steel Corp v Pfeifer 462 U S 523more precise to discount the entire lost stream of earnings back to the date of injurythe moment from which earning capacity was impaired.Jury instructions for contract and business cases The Dec 15,2011 Jones Laughlin Steel Corp v Pfeifer 462 U S 523#0183;Levine,49 So.2d 97 (Fla.1950) (using approach similar to calculation of cost of annuity); Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer,462 U.S.523 (1983),and Loftin v.Wilson,67 So.2d 185 (Fla.1953) (lost stream of income approach); Beaulieu v.Elliott,434 P.2d 665 (Alaska 1967) (total offset method); Culver v.Jury instructions for contract and business cases The Dec 15,2011 Jones Laughlin Steel Corp v Pfeifer 462 U S 523#0183;Levine,49 So.2d 97 (Fla.1950) (using approach similar to calculation of cost of annuity); Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer,462 U.S.523 (1983),and Loftin v.Wilson,67 So.2d 185 (Fla.1953) (lost stream of income approach); Beaulieu v.Elliott,434 P.2d 665 (Alaska 1967) (total offset method); Culver v.

Jones Act Economic Consulting

Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer,462 U.S.523,103 S.Ct.2541,76 L.Ed.2d 768 (1983).This decision offers extensive discussion of the estimation of lost earnings and earning capacity.For examples of application of Pfeifer reasoning to Jones Act cases see Madore v Ingram Tank Ships,732 F.2d 475 (5th Circuit 1984),and Hernandez v.Jones Act Procedure Right to Jury TrialMitchell v Trawler Racer,Inc.(1959,CA1 Mass) 265 F2d 426,revd on other grounds 362 US 539,4 L Ed 2d 941,80 S Ct 926 (superseded by statute as stated in Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v Pfeifer,462 US 523,76 L Ed 2d 768,103 S Ct 2541,on remand (CA3) 711 F2d 570).Jones Laughlin Steel Corporation v.Pfeifer OyezJones Laughlin Steel Corporation v.Pfeifer. Oyez,oyez/cases/1982/82-131.Accessed 30 Aug.2020.

Jones Laughlin Steel Corporation v.Pfeifer - Case Brief

PETITIONER Jones Laughlin Steel Corporation RESPONDENT Pfeifer LOCATION PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC CO.DOCKET NO.82-131 DECIDED BY Burger Court (1981-1986) LOWER COURT United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit CITATION 462 US 523 (1983) ARGUED Feb 28,1983 DECIDED Jun 15,1983 ADVOCATES Jerome M.Libenson - on behalf of the RespondentJones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer,462 U.S.523 Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer United States Supreme Court 462 U.S.523 (1983)Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer : 462 U.S.523 U.S.Supreme Court Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer,462 U.S.523 (1983) Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer.No.82-131.Argued February 28,1983.Decided June 15,1983.462 U.S.523.Syllabus.Respondent was injured in the course of his employment while employed by petitioner as a loading helper on petitioner's coal barge in

Helpin v.TRUSTEES OF UNIVERSITY OF PENN.,10 A.3d 267

For example,the United States Supreme Court has referred to a real interest rate of approximately two percent.Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer,462 U.S.523,542 n.25,103 S.Ct.2541,2553 n.25,76 L.Ed.2d 768 (1983).Other courts likewise recognize the existence of growth in safe investments even after inflation has been CALI The Center for Computer-Assisted Legal InstructionThis portion of the lesson examines in detail three specific methodologies for making such adjustments that were expressly articulated by the U.S.Supreme Court in its decision in Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer,462 U.S.523,76 L.Ed.2d 768,103 S.Ct.2541 (1983).Adjustments for Present Value and Future Inflation CALIThis portion of the lesson examines in detail three specific methodologies for making such adjustments that were expressly articulated by the U.S.Supreme Court in its decision in Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer,462 U.S.523,76 L.Ed.2d 768,103 S.Ct.2541 (1983).

Adjustments for Present Value and Future Inflation CALI

This portion of the lesson examines in detail three specific methodologies for making such adjustments that were expressly articulated by the U.S.Supreme Court in its decision in Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.v.Pfeifer,462 U.S.523,76 L.Ed.2d 768,103 S.Ct.2541 (1983).462 US 523 Jones Laughlin Steel Corporation v.E Pfeifer 462 U.S.523.103 S.Ct.2541.76 L.Ed.2d 768.JONES LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION,etc.,Petitioner,v.Howard E.PFEIFER.No.82-131.Argued Feb.28,1983.

Leave a Message

24 Hour steel Machining Response - Contact Now