Tulane Law Review
  • Main
  • Issues
    • All Volumes
    • Volume 87
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 86
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • Volume 85
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5&6
    • Volume 84
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • Admiralty Law Institute
      • 2011
      • 2009
      • 2007
      • 2005
      • 2003
      • 2001
      • 1999
      • 1995
      • 1994
      • 1991
      • 1989
      • 1988
      • 1985
      • 1983
  • Events
  • Masthead
  • History
  • Purpose
  • Submissions
  • Order
    • Subscribe
    • Back Issues
  • Contact
Tulane Law Review
RSSTwitterFacebook
All Volumes | Volume 85 | Issue 5 & 6

United State v. Pickett: The Fifth Circuit Renders Point of Origin Irrelevant in Evaluating the Application of the Border Search Exception

Jonathan D. Phelps | Note

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the border search exception applied, regardless of a defendant’s point of origin, as long as the defendant crossed a border. United States v. Pickett, 598 F.3d 231, 235 (5th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 637 (2010).

 

[Continue Reading...]

Combo Maritime, Inc. v. U.S. United Bulk Terminal, LLC: The Fifth Circuit Finds Comparative Fault Principle Unaffected By Burden-Shifting Presumption of Fault in Admiralty Case

James Melchers | Note

Reversing the district court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that United could seek contribution from Carnival after settling with Combo, reasoning that contribution can be sought by a settling tortfeasor who releases all claims, that the presumption of fault against a defendant in the case of drifting vessels is not to be applied between codefendants, and that the presumption of fault does not affect the principle that joint tortfeasors are entitled to allocate damages relative to their proportionate degree of fault. Combo Maritime, Inc. v. U.S. United Bulk Terminal, LLC, 615 F.3d 599, 2010 AMC [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Peterson v. City of Forth Worth: The Fifth Circuit Demands More Than the Demanding Standard of Monell to Establish Municipal Liability under § 1983

Camille E. Gauthier | Note

Ultimately, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas concluded that while Peterson made a colorable claim for the excessive use of force against the individual officers, he failed to meet the rigorous standard necessary to impose municipal liability, and the court consequently dismissed his complaint under summary judgment. Affirming this decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that twenty-seven claims of excessive force did not amount to an official city policy permissive of excessive force and, thus, the city could not be liable. Peterson v. City of Fort Worth, 588 F.3d [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Smith v. Xerox Corp.: The Fifth Circuit Maintains Mixed-Motive Applicability in Title VII Retaliation Claims

Kimberly Cheeseman | Note

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the mixed-motive framework applies to Title VII retaliation cases and a plaintiff can present circumstantial or direct evidence to obtain a mixed-motive jury instruction. Smith v. Xerox Corp., 602 F.3d 320, 329, 331-32 (5th Cir. 2010).

 

[Continue Reading...]

Marine Casualty Investigations

Thomas Forbes | Symposium

This Article will focus primarily on the government entities (e.g., Coast Guard and NTSB) responsible for conducting marine casualty investigations. These formal investigations allow evidence to be gathered and preserved in a more orderly manner than can be done during, or even immediately after, a serious collision, fire, oil discharge, sinking, or other casualty, when response is the primary goal and the “Incident Command Center,” whether run solely by the Coast Guard or in conjunction with other federal and state agencies, is still in full swing.

 

[Continue Reading...]

Maritime Catastrophe Response — Civil and Criminal Counsel Investigation; Illustrative Recent Collision and Platform Case Law; Criminalization of Marine Negligence

Michael M. Butterworth & Thomas D. Forbes | Symposium

To most people, nothing is more fascinating and newsworthy than a maritime disaster. A burning factory in Kentucky or a pipeline oil spill in Utah does not generate the same sense of drama and excitement as an equivalent amount of spilled oil from a burning ship or oil platform in Louisiana, Texas, or anywhere else.

This Article partners a panel presentation at the 2011 Tulane Admiralty Law Institute. In this presentation, for illustrative purposes, the authors played back a United States Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Automatic Identification System (AIS) Electronic Chart Display (ECDIS) for the M/T BOW FORTUNE–M/T STOLT [...]

[Continue Reading...]

The Role of the P&I Clubs in Marine Pollution Incidents

Charles B. Anderson & Colin de la Rue | Symposium

The fire and explosion on the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon and the subsequent release of nearly five million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico has been characterized as “the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced.” Although the oil spill occurred while the rig was operating as an offshore facility, among the many issues arising from the disaster is the adequacy of the current limits of liability applicable both to vessels and offshore oil exploration and production facilities under the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), and the role of the marine insurance industry [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Hijacked: The Unlikely Interface Between Somali Piracy and the U.S. Regulatory Regime

Bruce G. Paulsen & Ellen Lafferty | Symposium

As of March 4, 2011, 33 vessels and 711 crew members were being held hostage by pirates. The international community has engaged in various efforts to address the continuing problem of pirate hijackings with seemingly little success. The United States has also taken its own swipe at piracy through Executive Order 13,536, entitled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia” (Order), that was issued by President Barack Obama on April 12, 2010. Upon its issuance, the Order created a great deal of confusion and consternation with respect to whether it prohibited the payment of ransom to pirates. The [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Arbitration Law In Flux and Maritime Implications

Edward F. Sherman | Symposium

Arbitration clauses are contained in many if not most maritime contracts, and maritime arbitration practice is a fairly settled process for resolving maritime disputes. But recent developments in the larger world of arbitration have unsettled some of the basic assumptions, and in a number of areas arbitration law is in flux. These developments bear watching by maritime practitioners, as they will undoubtedly impact the functioning of arbitration in the maritime context. . . .

[Continue Reading...]

Impacts of the Supreme Court Decision Regal-Beloit: Exporting Import Litigation

Dennis A. Commarano | Symposium

The United States Supreme Court’s June 2010 decision in Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp. puts to rest an element of the controversy over the legal regime applicable to domestic losses to intermodal shipments originating from overseas. According to the Regal-Beloit Court, the Carmack Amendmentis not triggered when a domestic rail carrier accepts such imported cargo. Instead, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) of 1936 can apply to both the ocean and inland legs of a multimodal import shipment. Thus, the Court’s most recent decision gives further imprimatur to the use of Himalaya clauses in through ocean bills of lading to extend COGSA’s application to [...]

[Continue Reading...]
  • ← Previous Entries
  • Directory

    • All Volumes
      • Volume 87
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
      • Volume 86
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
      • Volume 85
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5 & 6
      • Volume 84
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6

Contact

Tulane Law Review
Tulane University Law School
6329 Freret Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70118-6231
Telephone: (504) 865-5973 or (504) 865-5974
Facsimile: (504) 862-8858
E-mail: lawjournals@tulane.edu

Return to the Tulane website.

© 2012 Tulane Law Review

Search

Topics

Administrative Law Admiralty Jurisdiction Admiralty Law Antiassignment Clauses Antitrust Law Arbitration Child Custody Choice of Law Civil Law Civil Procedure Community Property Comparative Law Constitutional Law Contract Law Corporate Law Criminal Law Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Employment Law Environmental Law Family Law Federalism and Preemption Federal Preemption of State Law Fourth Amendment Health Care Law Intellectual Property Intercollegiate Athletics International Law Judicial Review Law and Economics Local Government Localism Louisiana's Wetlands Louisiana Noncompete Agreements Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act Mixed Jurisdictions Municipal Government Piracy Preemption of State Tort Law Property Law Right to Counsel Roman Law Software Transactions Sports Law Tax Law Tort Law