Add to ORKGThe United States Supreme Court held that railroad employee\u27s who are injured while performing maintenance tasks on equipment essential to the process of loading or unloading a ship are covered for injuries under the provisions of the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers\u27 Compensation Act. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Co. v Schwalb, ___ US ___, 110 S Ct 381 (1989)
Prior to major changes effective November 27, 1972,\u27 the jurisprudence under the 1927 Longshoreme...
Admiralty--Longshoremen\u27s and Harbor Workers\u27 Compensation Act Amendments of 1972--Congress Ab...
As late as 1893, state courts were not required to apply federal maritime law to common-law proceedi...
Respondent, a freight brakeman employed by petitioning railroad at its Jersey City yards, was injure...
Respondent, a freight brakeman employed by petitioning railroad at its Jersey City yards, was injure...
Respondent, a freight brakeman employed by petitioning railroad at its Jersey City yards, was injure...
Considers the 1972 amendments to the Longshoremen\u27s and Harbor Workers\u27 Compensation Act, espe...
Petitioner was injured on his employer\u27s barge moored in navigable waters while assisting in a lo...
The law relating to longshoremen\u27s remedies abounds with surprising anomalies, hyper-technical di...
Plaintiff and five others were hired to load a lake freighter with cargo for winter storage. They we...
The decision in Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen that state law does not apply to injuries occurring o...
The law relating to longshoremen\u27s remedies abounds with surprising anomalies, hyper-technical di...
In 1927, the United States Congress passed the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (...
It is universally recognized that in the past two decades the United States Supreme Court has substa...
Plaintiff was an employee of the Boston Terminal Company, defendant, which owned and operated the So...
Prior to major changes effective November 27, 1972,\u27 the jurisprudence under the 1927 Longshoreme...
Admiralty--Longshoremen\u27s and Harbor Workers\u27 Compensation Act Amendments of 1972--Congress Ab...
As late as 1893, state courts were not required to apply federal maritime law to common-law proceedi...
Respondent, a freight brakeman employed by petitioning railroad at its Jersey City yards, was injure...
Respondent, a freight brakeman employed by petitioning railroad at its Jersey City yards, was injure...
Respondent, a freight brakeman employed by petitioning railroad at its Jersey City yards, was injure...
Considers the 1972 amendments to the Longshoremen\u27s and Harbor Workers\u27 Compensation Act, espe...
Petitioner was injured on his employer\u27s barge moored in navigable waters while assisting in a lo...
The law relating to longshoremen\u27s remedies abounds with surprising anomalies, hyper-technical di...
Plaintiff and five others were hired to load a lake freighter with cargo for winter storage. They we...
The decision in Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen that state law does not apply to injuries occurring o...
The law relating to longshoremen\u27s remedies abounds with surprising anomalies, hyper-technical di...
In 1927, the United States Congress passed the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (...
It is universally recognized that in the past two decades the United States Supreme Court has substa...
Plaintiff was an employee of the Boston Terminal Company, defendant, which owned and operated the So...
Prior to major changes effective November 27, 1972,\u27 the jurisprudence under the 1927 Longshoreme...
Admiralty--Longshoremen\u27s and Harbor Workers\u27 Compensation Act Amendments of 1972--Congress Ab...
As late as 1893, state courts were not required to apply federal maritime law to common-law proceedi...