ROBERT MAHONY, AS FATHER AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF EVE MAHONY, IN HIS OWN BEHALF AND AS NEXT OF KIN AND FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF EVE MAHONY'S MOTHER, BARBARA MAHONY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

11th Cir. | 1992-12-23
No. 90-9052
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, FAY, KRAYITCH, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
980 F.2d 1379 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1992) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
BY THE COURT:

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, FAY, KRAYITCH, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: A member of this court in active service having sua sponte requested a poll on whether this case should be reheard by the Court sitting en banc and a majority of the judges in this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc, IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc. The previous panel’s opinion is hereby VACATED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Hawkins Sandblasting, Inc. v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., 668 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
    …sing under the contract within the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts. See, e.g., Sirius Ins. Co. (UK) Ltd. v. Collins, 16 F. 3d 34 (2d Cir.1994) (holding events on shore gave rise to claim under maritime contract); Smith v. United States, 980 F. 2d 1379 (11th Cir.1993) (deciding indemnity claim by JSI against CISCO). By virtue of the saving to suitors clause, 28 U.S.C. § 1331(1) (1949), however, state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over most maritime claims. The circuit court had jurisdiction…
  • Mahony v. CSX Transp., Inc., 993 F.2d 211 (11th Cir. 1993)
    …1548 (11th Cir.1991), remanded the case. 966 F. 2d 644. A majority of the active judges in regular active service ordered that the appeal be reheard by the court of appeals en bane. This order vacated the panel opinion. Mahony v. CSX Transp., Inc., 980 F. 2d 1379 (11th Cir.1992). Subsequently, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed our decision in Easterwood. See CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1732, 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993). We now reinstate the panel opinion in its entirety. IT…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw