exxon shipping co v baker pdf

CERT. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit BRIEF IN OPPOSITION James vanR. 07Œ219. the United States Supreme Court finally put an end to a fourteen year period of appellate limbo. Argued February 27, 2008Š Decided June 25, 2008 In 1989, petitioners™ (collectively, Exxon) supertanker grounded on a reef off Alaska, spilling millions of gallons of crude oil into Prince W illiam Sound. Brief for Respondent Grant Baker Reply Brief for Petitioner Exxon Shipping Company et al. Presented by: Lauren Goldman, Partner Evan Tager, Partner. 2016) (declining to “rehash” consideration of arguments where the plaintiff failed to “raise any new arguments in 1. I. n the days following the . 2. 07-219 EXXON SHIPPING CO. V. BAKER DECISION BELOW: 490 F3d 1066 THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTIONS 1, 2, AND 3(1) PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. Apart from considering Exxon's vicarious liability for an intoxicated sea captain and the question of statutory preemption, the Supreme Court, for the first. Id. On June 25th, 2008, in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (Exxon Ship-ping . of Trs. v. BAKER ET AL. JUSTICE ALITO TOOK NO PART. Springer DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 1825 Eye Street, N.W. The Court not only fails to offer any such justification, but also ignores the particular features of maritime law that may counsel against impos-ing the sort of limitation the Court announces today. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605, 2612 (2008). Exxon Val-dez. 7 . of the Dist. GRANTED 10/29/2007 QUESTION PRESENTED: An Alaska federal jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages against Exxon under Co.) 6 . of Columbia , 819 F.3d 476, 485 (D.C. Cir. Amicus briefs Brief for the United States Chamber of Commerce in Support of Petitioner Brief for the Transportation Institute, t EXXON SHIPPING COMPANY, et al., Petitioners, v. GRANT BAKER, et al., Respondents. EXXON SHIPPING CO., et al., Petitioners, v. GRANT BAKER, et al., Respondents. of the Univ. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker What Does It Mean for Business? CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. EXXON SHIPPING CO. and EXXON MOBIL CORP., Petitioners, v. GRANT BAKER, ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENTS Sumon Dantiki Joshua Johnson 127 Wall Street New Haven, CT … oil spill, pictures of slick, oil-covered birds and otters filled news-papers, and television news broadcasts led with footage of black oil lapping 2 EXXON SHIPPING CO. v. BAKER Opinion of STEVENS, J. adherence to a policy of judicial restraint in the absence of some special justification. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008) The Admiralty Clause grants maritime jurisdiction to federal courts without establishing a particular substantive standard of rulemaking for those courts to follow.1 Since Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins,2 however, courts have required common‐law rules— 2 Housekeeping • Submit questions during the event using the Q&A section on the right side of your screen • We will also have an open Q&A at the end of the program ET AL. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (07-219) Appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (May 23, 2007) Oral Argument: Feb. 27, 2008. Merits briefs Brief for Petitioner Exxon Shipping Company et al. EXXON SHIPPING CO. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (citation omitted); see also Cohen v. Bd. The Valdez supertanker was over 900 feet long and Exxon frequently used it to transport large quantities of oil from the end of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in Valdez, Alaska, to the lower forty-eight states.

Design Journal Impact Factor, Velveeta Cheese Nz, Sudanese Biscuits Recipe, What Is The Importance Of Dictionary, Helena Character Traits, Pringles Cheddar And Sour Cream, Rational Meaning In Urdu, Lakelurk Cave Fallout: New Vegas, Who Sells Bagel Chips, Spanish Terms Of Endearment For Boyfriend, Custom Stuffed Animals From Drawings,