U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1998

Gray v. Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided September 25, 1998 · Clark, Hatchett, Tjoflat

155 F.3d 1343; 1998 WL 657666 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

Edward W. Killorin, Robert Ware Killorin, Killorin & Killorin, Atlanta, GA, Howard M. Acosta, Law Offices of Howard M. Acosta, St. Petersburg, FL, for Gray, Schumachaer and Jennings., Richard B. North, Jr., Edgar A. Neely, III, Atlanta, GA, Richard M. Sharp, Frederick C. Schafrick, Shea & Gardner, Washington, DC, for Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision. The 1 that cite it most often are listed here.

Vo v. Yamaha Golf Car Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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., — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1890, 141 L.Ed.2d 102 (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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.