Pfeifer v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

Third Circuit

Pfeifer v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

711 F.2d 570

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedAugust 1, 1983

DocketNo. 81-1928

StatusPublished

This text of 711 F.2d 570 (Pfeifer v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pfeifer v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 711 F.2d 570 (3d Cir. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In Pfeifer v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 678 F.2d 453 (3d Cir.1982), we affirmed the judgment of the district court, determining that the district court did not err. in allowing a longshoreman proceeding under § 5(b) of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), to sue his employer as owner pro hac vice of the vessel upon which the longshoreman was injured, or in applying in its damages calculations the “total offset method” of Kaczkowski v. Bolubasz, 491 Pa. 561, 421 A.2d 1027 (1980). Jones & Laughlin petitioned the Supreme Court for review, and the Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari. — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 50, 74 L.Ed.2d 57 (1982).

On June 15,1983, the Supreme Court held that the district court erred in considering itself bound by Kaczkowski, vacated our judgment, and remanded. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 2541, 76 L.Ed.2d 768 (1983).

The judgment of the district court will be vacated and the cause remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In Pfeifer v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 678 F.2d 453 (3d Cir.1982), we affirmed the judgment of the district court, determining that the district court did not err. in allowing a longshoreman proceeding under § 5(b) of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), to sue his employer as owner pro hac vice of the vessel upon which the longshoreman was injured, or in applying in its damages calculations the “total offset method” of Kaczkowski v. Bolubasz, 491 Pa. 561, 421 A.2d 1027 (1980). Jones & Laughlin petitioned the Supreme Court for review, and the Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari. — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 50, 74 L.Ed.2d 57 (1982).

On June 15,1983, the Supreme Court held that the district court erred in considering itself bound by Kaczkowski, vacated our judgment, and remanded. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 2541, 76 L.Ed.2d 768 (1983).

The judgment of the district court will be vacated and the cause remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

711 F.2d 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pfeifer-v-jones-laughlin-steel-corp-ca3-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack