Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): specifically, how to define “adjoining area” under the Act. Texports Stevedore Co. v. Winchester, 632 F.2d 504 (5th Cir.1980) (en bane), cert denied, 452 U.S. 905, 101 S.Ct. 3031, 69 L.Ed.2d 406 (1981). The Winchester majority adopted a broad definition of “adjoining area” that was in keeping with the plain meaning of the words, as well as “the spirit of the congressional purposes.” Id. at 514. The decades since Winchester was decided have re Appx. 793 (5th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (unpublished) (affirming LHWCA situs status for job shop specializing in the repair and construction of marine parts where shop was one-hundred feet from river and located in area customarily used for maritime activity); Mobil Mining & Minerals v. Nixson, 209 F.3d 719 (5th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>); Sisson v. Davis & Sons, Inc., 131 F.3d 555 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that floating casino was not a covered situs (B) holding that a fixed oil production platform was not a covered situs (C) holding that the public use exception was not applicable because the injury to the tenants employee occurred in an area of the leased premises that was not open to the public but was used only by employees (D) holding that injury in a parking lot did not occur on a covered situs (E) holding injury at premises adjacent to the houston ship channel occurred on a covered situs
Output (English): holding that floating casino was not a covered situs