Citation network
Atlantic Sounding Co. Vs. Townsend
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 25, 2009
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2008 Atlantic Sounding Co. V. TownsendSearch
-
Because punitive damages have long been an accepted remedy under general maritime law, and because neither Miles v. ApexSearch
-
least 1784. This Court has also found punitive damages authorized as a matter of common-law doctrine. See, e.g., Day v. WoodworthSearch
-
damages tradition extends to claims arising under federal maritime law. See Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. Co. v. PrenticeSearch
-
refers to medical treatment, Lewis v. LewisSearch
-
general maritime law, it necessarily follows that Congress envisioned their continued availability. See Chandris, Inc. v. LatsisSearch
-
Ltd. v. RudolfSearch
-
that the Jones Act preserves common-law causes of action such as maintenance and cure, see. e.g., The Arizona v. AnelichSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
that punitive damages awards, in particular, continue to remain available in maintenance and cure actions, see Vaughan v. AtkinsonSearch
-
contrary view was directly rejected in Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. GarrisSearch
-
the Jones Act for maintenance and cure claims, does not mean that the Jones Act provides the only remedy. See Cortes v. BaltimoreSearch
-
filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia and Kennedy, JJ., joined. Atlantic Sounding Co. v. TownsendSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 08-214 Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc., Et Al., Petitioners V. EdgarSearch
-
s willful failure to pay maintenance and cure. Petitioners argue that under Miles v. ApexSearch
-
Lewis v. LewisSearch
-
The decision conflicted with those of other Courts of Appeals, see, e.g. , Guevara v. MaritimeSearch
-
Glynn v. RoySearch
-
colonial era, juries were accorded broad discretion to award damages as they saw fit. See, e.g. , Lord Townsend v. HughesSearch
-
Feltner v. ColumbiaSearch
-
Pictures Television, Inc. , 523 U. S. 340 , 353 (1998) (quoting Dimick v. SchiedtSearch
-
Wilkes v. WoodSearch
-
see also Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. HaslipSearch
-
Huckle v. MoneySearch
-
have likewise permitted punitive damages awards in appropriate cases since at least 1784. See, e.g. , Genay v. NorrisSearch
-
Coryell v. ColbaughSearch
-
This Court has also found the award of punitive damages to be authorized as a matter of common-law doctrine. In Day v. WoodworthSearch
-
see also Philadelphia, W., & B. R. Co. v. QuigleySearch
-
at common law extended to claims arising under federal maritime law. See Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. Co. v. PrenticeSearch
-
were available in maritime actions for tortious acts of a particularly egregious nature. See, e.g. , McGuire v. TheSearch
-
Ralston v. TheSearch
-
Boston Mfg. Co. v. FiskeSearch
-
and cure was first recognized in this country in two lower court decisions authored by Justice Story. See Harden v. GordonSearch
-
Reed v. CanfieldSearch
-
that Congress was envisioning the continued availability of those common-law causes of action. See Chandris, Inc. v. LatsisSearch
-
Stewart v. DutraSearch
-
see also American Export Lines, Inc. v. AlvezSearch
-
Donnell v. GreatSearch
-
Pacific S. S. Co. v. PetersonSearch
-
s passage. In Vaughan v. AtkinsonSearch
-
the recognition of a general maritime action for wrongful death of a seaman. Id., at 24 (discussing Moragne v. StatesSearch
-
See Miles , supra, at 31 (citing Mobil Oil Corp. v. HigginbothamSearch
-
made available under the Jones Act was directly rejected by this Court in Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. GarrisSearch
-
is true that the negligent denial of maintenance and cure may also be the subject of a Jones Act claim. See Cortes v. BaltimoreSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial