U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1984

Breath v. Cronvich

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided June 14, 1984 · Brown, Gee, Williams

734 F.2d 225 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Robert M. Hearin, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Breath., Richard Goins, New Orleans, La., for Brown., Patricia N. Bowers, Asst. Atty. Gen., New Orleans, La., for State of Louisiana., William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Patricia Nalley Bowers, Asst. Atty. Gen., New Orleans, La., for Treen., Richard M. Michalczyk, Cronvich, Wambsgans & Michalczyk, Metairie, La., Durrett, Hardin, Hunter, Dameron & Fritchie, Emile C. Rolfs, III, Baton Rouge, La., for Cronvieh, et al., Lee, Martiny & Caracci, Daniel R. Martiny, Metairie, La., for Lee.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision. The 3 that cite it most often are listed here.

United States of America, United States of America, State of Louisiana, Intervenor-Appellee v. Marine Shale Processors, Cross-Appellee (5th Cir. 1996)
Jackson Court Condominiums, Inc. v. City of New Orleans (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1987)
L.E. Eguia v. Joyce Tompkins (5th Cir. 1985)

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

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion 4/16/84, 5 Cir., 1984, 729 F.2d 1006)

Before BROWN, GEE and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

On petition for rehearing, Breath argues that we failed to consider the trial court’s award of special damages under state law for damage caused to his vehicle as a result of the tow. While it is correct that the district court awarded Breath $190.50 for repairs to his vehicle, $20 for the towing and impairment fee, and $1000 for “upset, distress and considerable inconvenience,” these damages resulted from the trial court’s finding of § 1983 liability and not as a result of the pendent state claims. It is clear from the district court’s opinion that the state law issues were never reached.

Consequently, our opinion is amended to REMAND the case so that the district court may decide whether to consider the state law claims. In all other respects, our judgment is AFFIRMED.

The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 35) the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.

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