Arsement v. Spinnaker Exploration Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the owner of an offshore drilling platform was not liable under Section 414 to plaintiffs, a contractor’s employees who were injured on the platform, because the owner lacked sufficient control over the mode or method of the plaintiffs’ work
• stating that chapter 95 applies to the property owner, but not to general or independent contractors
• stating that chapter 95 applies to the property owner, but not to general or independent contractors
• applying de novo review when the nonmovant failed to object in the four days between the movant’s filing the motion and the district court’s ruling on it
• noting it was undisputed that the sump deck constituted an improvement
• “It goes without saying that a pre-trial order controls the scope and course of trial . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).