Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Bell v. Oceaneering International Inc”
McCary v. Oceaneering Int'l, Inc.public domain
HIGGINBOTHAM, J. Plaintiff, Mr. Brad McCary, was injured on a vessel owned by defendant, Oceaneering International, Inc., during the course and scope of his employment with International Marine Systems, LLC (IMS). He received benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) from IMS and its insurer, Signal Mutual Indemnity Association, LTD (Signal). IMS and Signal (Intervenors) intervened in plaintiff's sui
MacPhail v. Oceaneering International, Inc.public domain
186 F.Supp.2d 704 (2002) Alistair J. MACPHAIL Plaintiff, v. OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL, INC. Defendant. No. CIV.A.G-01-266. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Galveston Division. February 11, 2002. *705 Joseph W Walker, Franklin Mosele & Walker, Gary J Siller, Strasburger & Price LLP, Houston, for Alistair J MacPhai
MacPhail v. Oceaneering International, Inc.public domain
170 F.Supp.2d 718 (2001) Alistair J. MACPHAIL Plaintiff, v. OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL, INC. Defendant. No. G-01-266. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Galveston Division. October 17, 2001. *719 *720 Joseph W Walker, Franklin Mosele & Walker, Houston, TX, Gary J Siller, Strasburger
DeMOSS, Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an action brought by Alistair MacPhail (MacPhail) as an admiralty and maritime law claim against Oceaneering International, Inc. (Oceaneer-ing) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Specifically, this appeal concerns the validity of contractual forum selection clause and an injunction preventing Oceane
Bell v. Bollenbach & House, Inc.public domain
Bell v Bollenbach & House, Inc. (2025 NY Slip Op 04453) Bell v Bollenbach & House, Inc. 2025 NY Slip Op 04453 Decided on July 30, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
MacPhail v. Oceaneering Intl Incpublic domain
REVISED AUGUST 27, 2002 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 02-40317 ALISTAIR J. MACPHAIL, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-A
Opinion issued August 27, 2015 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-14-00207-CV ——————————— ELLEN LUMENTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ROY MEYERS REVELINO NAWAWI, DECEASED, Appellant
A.P. Bell Fish Company, Inc. v. Gina Raimondopublic domain
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 27, 2023 Decided March 1, 2024 No. 23-5026 A.P. BELL FISH COMPANY, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS v. GINA RAIMONDO, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ET AL., APPELLEES Appeal from the United States Distric
Laugelle v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.public domain
WALLACE, J. I.Introduction This wrongful death action arises out of a helicopter crash that occurred on December 11, 2008, in the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Sabine Pass, Texas.1 Joseph Lau-gelle, Jr. (“Pilot”), the pilot of the helicopter, was transporting four passengers to an off-shore oil rig, when the helicopter crashed into the ocean about two miles offshore.
ORDER: (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT ALL-MAX’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND DEFENDANT HBS’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PARTIAL LEAVE TO AMEND; AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge On April 25, 2017, Defendant Allmax Nutrition, Inc. filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Ci
Schmidt v. Cal-Dive International, Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM RULING REBECCA F. DOHERTY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Currently pending before the Court are two motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) [Doc. Nos. 66, 68] filed by all defendants in these consolidated suits. Pursuant to their motions, defendants seek dismissal of all claims asserted in this matter. Alternatively, defendants move the Court to strike the redundant and immateria
Alfa International Seafood, Inc. v. Pritzkerpublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION Amit P. Mehta, United States District Judge “One fish two fish red fish blue fish. Black fish blue fish old fish new fish.... Say! what a lot of fish there are.” —Dr. Seuss, One Fish Two Fish Bed Fish Blue Fish (1960)
Tindall Corp. v. Mondelez International, Inc.public domain
Memorandum Opinion and Order Honorable Edmond E. Chang, United States District Judge This case illustrates that if a company wants to make sure that it has a real deal with another company—especially a multimillion dollar deal—put it in writing.1 Not just emails, but a formal, written agreement. Tindall Corporation brought this lawsuit against food-and-beverage conglomerate
Bell v. Lutnickpublic domain
Case: 24-60055 Document: 227-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED March 27, 2026 No. 24-60055
McLane v. Marriott International, Inc.public domain
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (D.E. 215) JOAN A. LENARD, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (“Appellate Order,” D.E. 373). Before the Court for reconsideration pursuant to the Appellate Order is Defendant Marriott International
Scherr v. Marriot International, Inc.public domain
OPINION AND ORDER CHARLES RONALD NORGLE, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendants Marriot International, Inc., Courtyard Management Corporation, Courtyard II Associates, LP, and Marriot International Design and Construction Services, Inc.’s (collectively, “Marriot”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Marjorie Friedman Scherr’s (“Scherr”) Complaint. For the following reasons, Marriot’s motion is granted in p
Prophet v. INTERNATIONAL LIFESTYLES, INC.public domain
778 F.Supp.2d 1358 (2011) Steven PROPHET, et al., Plaintiffs v. INTERNATIONAL LIFESTYLES, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 10-60152-CIV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida. March 31, 2011. *1361 Guy Millo Shir, Kahan & Associates, Boca Raton, FL, Brian Burke, Worcester, MA, for Plaintiffs. Bruce Richard Marx,
People v. Bellpublic domain
Filed 11/2/15 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F064909 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Kern Super. Ct. Nos. BF123070A; v. BF12307
Composite Co. v. American International Group, Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND F. DENNIS SAYLOR IV, District Judge. This is an action based on the alleged failure of defendants to revise underwrit*67ing figures and adjust reserves for workers’ compensation insurance policies. Defendant American Home Assurance Compan
Colonial Press International, Inc. v. United Statespublic domain
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 13-403C Filed: October 31, 2013 Reissued: December 3, 20131 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * COLONIAL PRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC., * * Post-Award Bid Protest; Government Plaintiff, * Printing Office; Sta