Daniel Melancon v. Amoco Productions Company, Etc. v. Beraud Enterprises, Inc., Third Party

Third Circuit

Daniel Melancon v. Amoco Productions Company, Etc. v. Beraud Enterprises, Inc., Third Party

841 F.2d 572, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 5759, 1988 WL 23286

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 22, 1988

Docket86-4491

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 841 F.2d 572 (Daniel Melancon v. Amoco Productions Company, Etc. v. Beraud Enterprises, Inc., Third Party) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daniel Melancon v. Amoco Productions Company, Etc. v. Beraud Enterprises, Inc., Third Party, 841 F.2d 572, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 5759, 1988 WL 23286 (3d Cir. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion Jan. 6, 1988, 5th Cir.1988, 834 F.2d 1238)

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby GRANTED for the sole purpose of amending the last paragraph before the VI Conclusion on page 1184 of the slip opinion [834 F.2d 1248] Amoco is not entitled to the. costs incurred in establishing its indemnity claim against Beraud. “[T]he indemnitee may not recover those costs and expenses incurred simply establishing the indemni-tees [sic] right to indemnification from the indemnitors.” State v. Laconco, Inc., 430 So.2d 1376, 1385 (La.App. 1 Cir.1983); see also Dow Chemical Co. v. M/V ROBERTA TABOR, 815 F.2d 1037, 1046 (5th Cir.1987). The last sentence of Section V opinion will now read:

We remand to the district court for determination of Amoco’s expenses in defending against the Melancon suit.

In all other respects the motion for rehearing is DENIED.

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

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion Jan. 6, 1988, 5th Cir.1988, 834 F.2d 1238)

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby GRANTED for the sole purpose of amending the last paragraph before the VI Conclusion on page 1184 of the slip opinion [834 F.2d 1248] Amoco is not entitled to the. costs incurred in establishing its indemnity claim against Beraud. “[T]he indemnitee may not recover those costs and expenses incurred simply establishing the indemni-tees [sic] right to indemnification from the indemnitors.” State v. Laconco, Inc., 430 So.2d 1376, 1385 (La.App. 1 Cir.1983); see also Dow Chemical Co. v. M/V ROBERTA TABOR, 815 F.2d 1037, 1046 (5th Cir.1987). The last sentence of Section V opinion will now read:

We remand to the district court for determination of Amoco’s expenses in defending against the Melancon suit.

In all other respects the motion for rehearing is DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

841 F.2d 572, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 5759, 1988 WL 23286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-melancon-v-amoco-productions-company-etc-v-beraud-enterprises-ca3-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack