Reading & Bates Petr v. Musslewhite

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: July 31, 1995
• Docket: 95-20003
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-20003 Summary Calendar _____________________

READING & BATES PETROLEUM CO., READING & BATES EXPLORATION CO. & READING & BATES DRILLING CO.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

BENTON MUSSLEWHITE, THE LAW OFFICES OF BENTON MUSSLEWHITE, and PETER MANANGKALANGI,

Defendants-Appellants.

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (CA 86 2671) _______________________________________________________ July 18, 1995

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants challenge the injunction and contempt orders

entered below. They challenged the contempt orders in a prior

appeal. Reading & Bates Petroleum Co. v. Musslewhite, 22 F.3d

1094 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 318 (1994). We have

* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published. examined the briefs and rehearing petitions from the prior appeal

and note that, as here, Appellants argued that the contempt

orders should not have been entered because the injunction was

ambiguous or vague, the district court impermissibly modified the

injunction in the context of a contempt proceeding, and the

district court's rulings were inconsistent with principles of

federalism. In particular, we note that Appellants argued in the

prior appeal that the injunction underlying the contempt orders

was invalid due to the Supreme Court's decision in American

Dredging Co. v. Miller, 114 S. Ct. 981 (1994). While Miller was

decided after the entry of the contempt orders, Appellants had

the opportunity to argue the effect of that case to the prior

panel. Our prior ruling is the law of the case, and cannot be

overruled by another panel of our court. While the procedural

posture of the case is somewhat different in this second appeal,

we see no new issues or arguments which give us pause to question

the prior decision of this court.

AFFIRMED.