U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1988

Daniel Melancon v. Amoco Productions Company, Etc. v. Beraud Enterprises, Inc., Third Party

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided March 22, 1988 · Reavley, Williams, Higginbotham

841 F.2d 572; 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 5759; 1988 WL 23286 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

John O. Charrier, Jr., New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellant., Richard A. Chopin, Thomas M. Richard, Metairie, La., for third-party defendant-ap-pellee.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Sam v. Bayou Holdco Inc (District Court, W.D. Louisiana 2025)
Earnest v. Palfinger Marine USA Inc (District Court, W.D. Louisiana 2022)
Robertson v. W & T OFFSHORE, INC. (District Court, W.D. Louisiana 2010)
Alleman v. Omni Energy Services Corp. (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 2007)
Foreman v. DANOS AND CUROLE MARINE CONT. (La. Ct. App. 1998)
Kerr v. Smith Petroleum (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1995)
Kerr v. Smith Petroleum Co. (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1995)
Metro Machine Corp. v. Mizenko (Va. 1992)
Fanguy v. Dupre Bros. Const. Co., Inc. (La. Ct. App. 1991)
Cooper v. Offshore Express, Inc. (District Court, W.D. Louisiana 1989)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion Jan. 6, 1988, 5th Cir.1988, 834 F.2d 1238)

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby GRANTED for the sole purpose of amending the last paragraph before the VI Conclusion on page 1184 of the slip opinion [834 F.2d 1248] Amoco is not entitled to the. costs incurred in establishing its indemnity claim against Beraud. “[T]he indemnitee may not recover those costs and expenses incurred simply establishing the indemni-tees [sic] right to indemnification from the indemnitors.” State v. Laconco, Inc., 430 So.2d 1376, 1385 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1983); see also Dow Chemical Co. v. M/V ROBERTA TABOR, 815 F.2d 1037, 1046 (5th Cir. 1987). The last sentence of Section V opinion will now read:

We remand to the district court for determination of Amoco’s expenses in defending against the Melancon suit.

In all other respects the motion for rehearing is DENIED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.