Chiasson v. Zapata Gulf Marine Corp.

Fifth Circuit

Chiasson v. Zapata Gulf Marine Corp.

3 F.3d 123, 1993 WL 358507

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 16, 1993

Docket91-3766

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 3 F.3d 123 (Chiasson v. Zapata Gulf Marine Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chiasson v. Zapata Gulf Marine Corp., 3 F.3d 123, 1993 WL 358507 (5th Cir. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before JONES, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges, and JUSTICE * , District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the 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. Petitioner and amici read our opinion too broadly. We simply hold that the surveillance evidence should have been disclosed during discovery because it was not used solely for impeachment as the local rule requires. The impeaching value of the evidence was minimal, whereas the evidence was probative on a central substantive issue in the case — plaintiffs physical condition.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before JONES, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges, and JUSTICE * , District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the 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. Petitioner and amici read our opinion too broadly. We simply hold that the surveillance evidence should have been disclosed during discovery because it was not used solely for impeachment as the local rule requires. The impeaching value of the evidence was minimal, whereas the evidence was probative on a central substantive issue in the case — plaintiffs physical condition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 F.3d 123, 1993 WL 358507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chiasson-v-zapata-gulf-marine-corp-ca5-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack