U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1977

Spinks v. Chevron Oil Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided February 3, 1977 · Coleman, Rives, Wisdom

546 F.2d 675 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Philip E. Henderson, Houma, La., for plaintiff-appellant-cross appellee., Lloyd C. Melancon, Joel L. Borrello, New Orleans, La., for Chevron Oil Co., Tom F. Phillips, John R. Tharp, Baton Rouge, La., for Labor Services, and others., James H. Drury, New Orleans, La., for Surplus Lines Ins., T. C. W. Ellis, New Orleans, La., for Steamship Mut., etc., Donald M. Pierce, Donald V. Organ, New Orleans, La., for Seguros American Banamex., Lawrence D. Wiedemann, New Orleans, La., for Welch Sales & Serv.

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision. The 13 that cite it most often are listed here.

Sheffield v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass (Ala. 1992)
Pallis v. United States (5th Cir. 2010)
Corsair v. Stapp Towing Co., Inc. (District Court, S.D. Texas 2002)
Jemison v. Falcon Drilling Co (5th Cir. 1998)
Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine Inc (5th Cir. 1997)
Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine Inc (5th Cir. 1997)
Charles D. Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc. (5th Cir. 1997)
Glynn v. Roy Al Boat Management Corp. (9th Cir. 1995)
Hae Woo Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp. (La. Ct. App. 1992)
John D. McClow Jr. v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Company, M/v Seminole (11th Cir. 1988)
Bach v. Trident Shipping Co., Inc. (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1988)
Paul L. Wyatt, Cross-Appellant v. Penrod Drilling Co., and Offshore Food Services, Inc., Cross-Appellees (5th Cir. 1984)
Thomas D. Joyce v. Atlantic Richfield Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation (10th Cir. 1981)

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 of the Court

BY THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that the motion of Chevron Oil Company for clarification of the opinion is GRANTED.

In this Court’s opinion in these cases issued January 27, 1975, 5 Cir., 507 F.2d 216, the Court reversed and remanded the cases

“for (1) reconsideration of liability, both under the Jones Act and maritime law, consistent with the principles stated in this opinion; (2) reconsideration of the indemnity provisions of the contract between Labor Services and Chevron; and (3) the determination of damages, should the district court find for the plaintiff.”

At that time we used the term “reconsideration” because wé were hopeful that the dispute might be resolved without the necessity of a new trial. Now, on reflection and in the interests of justice, we conclude that the trial judge may exercise his discretion (1) to reconsider the issues without a new trial or (2) to conduct a trial on the existing record with such additional evidence as he may regard as material and pertinent to the issues raised in or as a result of the appeal or (3) to retry the case totally, if none of the parties is prejudiced by the judicial delays inherent in the appellate process involving a difficult case or a result of this Court’s failure to act more quickly on the motion for clarification. By prejudice we mean, for example, the death or unavailability of a key witness.

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