U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1994

Earl Wayne Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corporation, Penrod Drilling Corporation and Hytorc, M.E.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided April 28, 1994 · Politz, King, Garwood, Jolly, Higginbotham, Davis, Jones, Smith, Duhé, Wiener, Barksdale, Garza, Demoss

20 F.3d 614; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 9221; 1994 WL 157065 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

James 0. Dukes, Bryant, Clark, Dukes, Blakeslee, Ramsay & Hammond, Gulfport, MS, James O.M. Womack, Bernard H. Ticer, Burke & Mayer, New Orleans, LA, for Pen-rod., William B. Gibbens, III, Gelpi, Sullivan, Carroll & Gibbens, P.C., New Orleans, LA, for Hytorc, M.E., Maurice C. Hebert, Jr., David M. Flotte, Hebert, Mouledoux & Bland, New Orleans, LA, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp. (5th Cir. 1995)
Phelps v. Peery (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2022)
Paredes v. Williams (District Court, D. Nevada 2022)
The Eclipse Group LLP v. Target Corporation (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2020)
Frisella v. Transoceanic Cable Ship Co. (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 2002)
Guyton v. Pronav Ship Management, Inc. (District Court, S.D. Texas 2001)
Hall v. Environmental Chemical Corp. (District Court, S.D. Texas 1999)
Williams v. Castro (District Court, S.D. Texas 1998)
Boy Scouts Of America v. Graham (9th Cir. 1996)
Boy Scouts Of America v. Graham (9th Cir. 1996)
Boy Scouts of America v. Graham (9th Cir. 1996)
Boy Scouts of America v. Graham (9th Cir. 1996)
Peterson v. Test International, E.C. (District Court, S.D. Mississippi 1995)
Bertram v. Freeport McMoran, Inc. (5th Cir. 1994)
Horn v. Seacatcher Fisheries, Inc. (Or. Ct. App. 1994)
In re the Complaint of Boy Scouts of America (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1994)

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 SUGGESTIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHÉ, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.

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