Marathon Oil Comp v. Ruhrgas
This text of 182 F.3d 291 (Marathon Oil Comp v. Ruhrgas) 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.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________
No. 96-20361 _______________
MARATHON OIL COMPANY,
MARATHON INTERNATIONAL OIL COMPANY,
and
MARATHON PETROLEUM NORGE A/S,
Plaintiffs-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees,
VERSUS
A.G. RUHRGAS,
Defendant-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant.
_________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas _________________________ June 25, 1999
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before KING, Chief Judge, POLITZ, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHÉ, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This court, sitting en banc, reversed and remanded the
judgment of the district court. See Marathon Oil Co. v. A.G.
Ruhrgas, 145 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The Supreme Court
reversed and remanded the judgment of this court. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 119 S. Ct. 1563 (1999).
This matter is REMANDED to the panel that originally decided
it. See Marathon Oil Co. v. Ruhrgas, A.G., 115 F.3d 315, 318 (5th
Cir. 1997). The motion to recall mandate is DENIED as unnecessary.
The motion to expedite appeal is CARRIED WITH THE CASE, for
consideration by the panel.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
182 F.3d 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marathon-oil-comp-v-ruhrgas-ca5-1999.