Travelers Indemnity Company v. Atlantic Express Line, Pacindat Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association, Ltd.
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- (PC) Mendoza v. Matteson (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2023)
- (PC) Jones v. Benevious (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2023)
- Hudson v. King County Housing Authority (District Court, W.D. Washington 2025)
- Edmiston v. Perlick (District Court, D. Nevada 2023)
- Britton v. Arizona, State of (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 2022)
- Welch v. Ruebart (District Court, D. Nevada 2022)
- Tucker v. Saul (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2021)
- Santos-Pineda v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2018)
- Hawn v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2014)
- Grant v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2014)
- Grant v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2014)
- Hoyt Electrical v. ISSPRO (District Court, D. New Hampshire 2003)
- Hampshire Paper v. Highland Supply (District Court, D. New Hampshire 2002)
- Sam C. Gonzales v. The Prudential Insurance Co. Of America (5th Cir. 1990)
- Delaune v. Saint Marine Transportation Co. (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1990)
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
*8 ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
(Opinion Feb. 8, 1988, 5th Cir.1988, 837 F.2d 187)
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.