Travelers Indemnity Company v. Atlantic Express Line, Pacindat Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association, Ltd.

846 F.2d 7, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 7689, 1988 WL 46942
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 16, 1988
Docket86-3927
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 846 F.2d 7 (Travelers Indemnity Company v. Atlantic Express Line, Pacindat Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association, Ltd.) 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
Travelers Indemnity Company v. Atlantic Express Line, Pacindat Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association, Ltd., 846 F.2d 7, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 7689, 1988 WL 46942 (5th Cir. 1988).

Opinion

*8 ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion Feb. 8, 1988, 5th Cir.1988, 837 F.2d 187)

Before REAVLEY, WILLIAMS and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby DENIED.

In its motion for rehearing Paeindat Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association, Ltd., raises two issues. The first is that in upholding the service of process under the Louisiana longarm statute, we relied upon a case which had been decided after service was accomplished. A reading of our opinion in this case reveals that we did not rely upon the case in question. We simply stated that the case had settled the issue in Louisiana in conformance with what we had already held which was that service by mail was authorized in Louisiana.

The second claim is that the assertion of personal jurisdiction over the alien petitioner violates federal due process requirements. We held that petitioner had waived any claim of lack of minimum contacts to meet due process requirements. A re-reading of appellant’s original brief makes clear that they stated only one issue and the entire argument was based upon service of process under the Louisiana longarm statute. It is true that they cited a case, Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 798 F.2d 826 (5th Cir.1986), which does involve the due process contacts issue. They did not cite it for the purpose, however, of raising minimum contacts compliance with due process. Not one mention of that issue is found in petitioner’s original brief or reply brief before this Court. We properly held that the issue, if it had been raised in the trial court, was waived.

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

Related

(PC) Jones v. Benevious
E.D. California, 2023
(PC) Mendoza v. Matteson
E.D. California, 2023
Edmiston v. Perlick
D. Nevada, 2023
Welch v. Ruebart
D. Nevada, 2022
Tucker v. Saul
S.D. California, 2021
Santos-Pineda v. United States
Federal Claims, 2018
Hawn v. United States
Federal Claims, 2014
Grant v. United States
Federal Claims, 2014
Hoyt Electrical v. ISSPRO
2003 DNH 095P (D. New Hampshire, 2003)
Hampshire Paper v. Highland Supply
2002 DNH 171 (D. New Hampshire, 2002)
Delaune v. Saint Marine Transportation Co.
749 F. Supp. 1463 (E.D. Louisiana, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
846 F.2d 7, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 7689, 1988 WL 46942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travelers-indemnity-company-v-atlantic-express-line-pacindat-mutual-ca5-1988.