Texaco Exploration and Production, Inc. v. Amclyde Engineered Products Company, Inc., 03-31208.
| Decision Date | 23 June 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-31208.,03-31208. |
| Parties | TEXACO EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION, INC.; Marathon Oil Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMCLYDE ENGINEERED PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC.; et al., Defendants, AmClyde Engineered Products Company, Inc.; United Dominion Industries, Inc., formerly known as AMCA International Corp., formerly known as Clyde Division, Defendants-Appellees. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, each for its own self and not one for the other, jointly and not severally and each subscribing to Policy No. S611625 and each for its own self and not one for the other, jointly and not severally and each subscribed to Policy No. S611626; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AmClyde Engineered Products, Inc.; et al., Defendants, AmClyde Engineered Products, Inc.; AmClyde Engineered Products Company, Inc.; United Dominion Industries Inc., formerly known as AMCA International Corp., formerly known as Clyde Division; J. Ray McDermott International Vessels, Ltd., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
S. Gene Fendler (argued), Don Keller Haycraft, Brett Daneil Wise, Liskow & Lewis, J. Clifton Hall, III (argued), Karen Klaas Milhollin, Houston, TX, James H. Roussel, Baker, Donelson Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, New Orleans, LA, Philip G. Eisenberg, Mark Anthony Chavez, Locke, Liddell & Sapp, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Robert E. Couhig, Jr. (argued), Couhig Partners, Louis C. LaCour, Jr., James T. Rogers, III, Adams & Reese, New Orleans, LA, Robert N. Markle, Adams & Reese, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Charles M. Steen (argued), Houston, TX, Susan Elisabeth Kearns, Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, DC, John Donley, Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, IL, for J. Ray McDermott Intern. Vessels Ltd.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Ivan L.R. Lemelle, Judge.
ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED for the limited purpose of amending the text in the panel opinion issued on May 5, 2006. In the section of the panel opinion entitled "Conclusion," the following text is added as footnote 16 at the conclusion of the final sentence of the third paragraph,
Texaco amended its complaint to add as a defendant United Dominion Industries, Inc., a party also named as an AmClyde-related entity defendant in Underwriters' subrogation action....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Boulder Cnty. v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.
...2013) (quoting Texaco Expl. & Prod., Inc. v. AmClyde Engineered Prods. Co. , 448 F.3d 760, 768 (5th Cir. 2006), amended on reh'g , 453 F.3d 652 (5th Cir. 2006) ), and to encompass "the entire range of legal disputes that [Congress] knew would arise relating to resource development on the [O......
-
Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co., L.L.C.
...in turn quoting Texaco Expl. & Prod., Inc. v. AmClyde Engineered Prods. Co., 448 F.3d 760, 768 (5th Cir. 2006), amended on reh'g, 453 F.3d 652 (5th Cir. 2006) ); accord BP P.L.C., 31 F.4th at 219-20. Though the Energy Companies argue otherwise, the test's "second prong" — the only prong in ......
-
Barker v. Hercules Offshore, Inc.
...the states.” Texaco Exploration & Prod., Inc. v. AmClyde Engineered Prods. Co., 448 F.3d 760, 768 (5th Cir.2006)amended on reh'g,453 F.3d 652 (5th Cir.2006) (quoting Demette v. Falcon Drilling Co., 280 F.3d 492, 495 (5th Cir.2002), overruled on other grounds by, Grand Isle Shipyard v. Seaco......
-
United States v. Kaluza
...other."); see also Texaco Exploration & Prod., Inc. v. AmClyde Engineered Products Co., Inc., 448 F.3d 760, 768 amended on reh'g, 453 F.3d 652 (5th Cir. 2006) ("The Act expressly grants subject matter jurisdiction to the federal courts over cases and controversies 'arising out of or in conn......
-
And Not a Drop to Drink: Admiralty Law and the BP Well Blowout
...See, e.g ., Texaco Exploration & Prod., Inc. v. AmClyde Engineered Prods. Co., 448 F.3d 760, 770–71 (5th Cir. 2006), amended on reh’g , 453 F.3d 652 (5th Cir. 2006); Houston Oil & Minerals Corp. v. Am. Int’l Tool Co., 827 F.2d 1049, 1053–54 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, AMF Tuboscope v. Ho......