Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 91-3103
_______________
BRUCE SMITH,
Husband of/and TERESA SMITH,
Plaintiffs,
VERSUS
PENROD DRILLING CORP., et al.,
Defendants.
* * * * * * * * * *
CHEVRON U.S.A., INC.,
Third-Party
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON
and Various Insurers,
Third-Party
Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
_________________________
(May 29, 1992)
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND
SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING
EN BANC
(Opinion April 30, 1992, 5th
Cir., 1992, ___ F.2d ____)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, SMITH, Circuit Judge, and FITZWATER,*
District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
We make the following modifications to the panel opinion,
neither of which affects the result:
The first paragraph of part II.B is modified to read as
follows:
Deciding whether the contract at issue is
a maritime contract fortunately does not
require us to traverse the now-familiar maze
of cases interpreting similar contracts. In
Theriot v. Bay Drilling Corp., 783 F.2d 527
(5th Cir. 1986), we stated that "[a] principal
determinant is the relation the contract bears
to the ship ...." (Internal quotation omit-
ted.) Noting that in Theriot "the main piece
of equipment to be supplied by [the contrac-
tor] was a vessel," we held that "[t]he
contract thus focused upon the use of a vessel
in a maritime transaction and is a maritime
contract governed by maritime law." Id. In
Lewis, 898 F.2d at 1086, we opined that "[t]he
court's conclusion in Theriot that the con-
tract 'focused upon the use of a vessel', i.e.
the drilling barge identified in an exhibit to
the contract, inescapably leads to the same
conclusion in this case." We reach the same
result in the case sub judice.
The third paragraph of part II.B is modified to read as
follows:
1) Provisions of Work Order
The original contract was for drilling services, and
the specific agreement was for workover operations of
wells, primarily from, and with the use of, the vessel
furnished by the contractor pursuant to the agreement.
The contract "focused upon the use of a vessel,"
Theriot, 783 F.2d at 539, and thus, in this case, is
maritime.
* District Judge of the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designa-
tion.

Treating the suggestion for rehearing en banc as a petition
for panel rehearing, it is ordered that the petition for panel
rehearing is DENIED. No member of the panel nor Judge in regular
active service of this Court having requested that the Court be
polled on rehearing en banc (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
and Local Rule 35), the suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
3