Case Citator › Charles D. Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc.

Charles D. Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Declined by some courts
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
107 F.3d 331
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
183 of 183
Citing cases (total)
374
Treatment dates
2013
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. All 183 flagged citations to Charles D. Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc. have been read. One district court applied a contrary Second Circuit negligence standard; that treatment is listed below.
More on how this was screened

The other opinions generally applied Gautreaux's Jones Act ordinary-prudence rule or reported its effect on older decisions.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

374 later cases cite Charles D. Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc.; 183 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Charles D. Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Declined to follow

  • Applying binding Second Circuit law, the district court used a reduced burden to prove Jones Act negligence, contrary to Gautreaux's rule that the statutory relaxation affects causation alone.

    Harrington v. Atlantic Sounding Co. · E.D.N.Y. · filed

    In the Second Circuit, this relaxed standard also applies to proving a breach of the duty of care. See Williams v. Long Island R.R., 196 F.3d 402 (2d Cir.1999) (“While some circuits have limited the application of the ‘in whole or in part’ language to the element of causation and apply traditional standards to the duty of care owed, this Circuit has explicitly stated that it construes the statute, in light of its broad remedial nature, as creating a relaxed standard for negligence as well as causation.” (citations omitted)). But see, e.g., Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, 107 F.3d 331, 335 (5th Cir.1997) (“[T]he phrase ‘in whole or in part,’ as set forth in the statute, ... modifies only the causation prong of the inquiry. The phrase does not also modify the word ‘negligence.’ ”).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Charles D. Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace