Marine Off of Amer v. Vulcan MV

Fifth Circuit

Marine Off of Amer v. Vulcan MV

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 5, 1996

Docket95-30730

StatusUnpublished

This text of Marine Off of Amer v. Vulcan MV (Marine Off of Amer v. Vulcan MV) 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

Marine Off of Amer v. Vulcan MV, (5th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 95-30730 _______________________

MARINE OFFICE OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL,

Plaintiffs,

versus

VULCAN MV, her engines, tackle, etc.,ET AL,

Defendants. ____________________________________________

ASHLAND CEMENT CORPORATION INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff- Appellant Cross-Appellee,

THE MV VULCAN, her engines, tackle apparel, furniture, etc. in rem.

Defendant-Appellee

RONDEL SHIPPING LTD.

Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (92-CV-456) _________________________________________________________________

October 23, 1996 Before JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges, and FERGUSON*, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:**

The court has considered the parties’ appeals in light of

the briefs, oral arguments and pertinent portions of the record.

Having done so, we find no reversible error of fact or law and so

affirm the judgment of the district court. See Fifth Circuit Local

Rule 47.6.

Further, the notice of appeal filed by Rondel Shipping

Ltd. did not sufficiently identify the M/V VULCAN as a cross-

appellant in rem. It is not “otherwise clear from the notice”

filed by Rondel that the VULCAN in rem was a party to the appeal.

Consequently, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 3(c), the notice did not

include the vessel’s intent to appeal in rem. The VULCAN’s appeal

is DISMISSED. All Pacific Trading, Inc. v. Vessel M/V Hanjin Yosu,

7 F.3d 1427 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1194 (1994).

* District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.

** Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

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