Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gray v. Lockheed Aeronautical Sys., 95-8459 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Number: 95-8459 Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 24, 1997
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: PUBLISH IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED No. 95-8459 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 09/25/98 D.C. Docket Nos. 1:91-CV-2399-ODE THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK 1:91-CV-2400-ODE 1:91-CV-2401-ODE STACY C. GRAY, individually and as Surviving Spouse of Lt. Douglas G. Gray, and as Personal Representative of Lt. Douglas G. Gray, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, versus LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY, a division of Lockheed Corporation, Defendant-
More
                                                                                    PUBLISH
                    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                              FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                             ________________________________                            FILED
                                        No. 95-8459          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             ________________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                                                                    09/25/98
                      D.C. Docket Nos.           1:91-CV-2399-ODE                THOMAS K. KAHN
                                                                                     CLERK
                                                 1:91-CV-2400-ODE
                                                 1:91-CV-2401-ODE


STACY C. GRAY, individually and as Surviving Spouse
of Lt. Douglas G. Gray, and as Personal Representative of
Lt. Douglas G. Gray, deceased,

                                                         Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,

       versus

LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY,
a division of Lockheed Corporation,

                                                         Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,

                     -----------------------------------------------------------------

GRACE M. SCHUMACHER, individually and as Surviving
Parent of Lt. John T. Hartman, and as Personal
Representative of Lt. John Hartman, Deceased,

                                                         Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,
       versus

LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY,
a division of Lockheed Corporation,
                                    Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,


                     -----------------------------------------------------------------

WILMA J. JENNINGS, individually, and as Surviving Parent
of Lt. David S. Jennings, and as Personal Representative
of Lt. David S. Jennings, Deceased,
                                                     Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,

       versus

LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY,
a division of Lockheed Corporation,

                                                     Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,



_________________________________________________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________________________________________________

                                      (September 25, 1998)

         ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, and CLARK, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:


       This case is before the court on remand from the United States Supreme Court for further

consideration of our earlier opinion in light of Dooley v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., 
118 S. Ct. 1890
(1998). In accord with the Court’s opinion, we reverse our previous holding that appellees

may recover damages for pain and suffering on their survival action claims based on general

maritime law in conjunction with the Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U.S.C. App. §§ 761-768.

See Gray v. Lockheed Aeronautical Sys. Co., 
125 F.3d 1371
, 1381-86 (11th Cir. 1997). We

affirm the remainder of our decision that does not touch such survival action claims, and remand

to the district court for further proceedings consistent with our decision and Dooley.

                          REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.



                                                 2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer