Sharp v. Johnson Bros.

Fifth Circuit

Sharp v. Johnson Bros.

923 F.2d 46, 1991 WL 3184

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 17, 1991

DocketNo. 89-3764

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 923 F.2d 46 (Sharp v. Johnson Bros.) 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

Sharp v. Johnson Bros., 923 F.2d 46, 1991 WL 3184 (5th Cir. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before GEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and SMITH1, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

In its application for rehearing, Centennial Insurance Company argues that our reversal of the district court’s summary judgment in Centennial’s favor precludes it from raising additional defenses. To make it abundantly clear that this was not our intention, we amend footnote 4 in the opinion to read as follows:

Centennial may be able to require St. Paul to share these expenses as a co-insurer. The district court did not reach this issue, and we express no opinion on it or any other defense available to Centennial that was not presented to the district court.

The petition for rehearing is DENIED.

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

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before GEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and SMITH1, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

In its application for rehearing, Centennial Insurance Company argues that our reversal of the district court’s summary judgment in Centennial’s favor precludes it from raising additional defenses. To make it abundantly clear that this was not our intention, we amend footnote 4 in the opinion to read as follows:

Centennial may be able to require St. Paul to share these expenses as a co-insurer. The district court did not reach this issue, and we express no opinion on it or any other defense available to Centennial that was not presented to the district court.

The petition for rehearing is DENIED.

Ernest D. Sharp, Wausau Insurance Companies-Part I, Intervenor-Appellant v. Johnson Brothers Corp., St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Centennial Insurance Company and Employers of Wausau Insurance Co.-Part Ii, Johnson Brothers Corp., and St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Centennial Insurance Company

923 F.2d 46 (Fifth Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

923 F.2d 46, 1991 WL 3184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharp-v-johnson-bros-ca5-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack