Edwin C. Boutte, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross v. Chevron Oil Co., Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. State Mineral Bd., Third-Party, 442 F.2d 1337 (3rd Cir. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
Edwin C. Boutte, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross v. Chevron Oil Co., Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. State Mineral Bd., Third-Party, 442 F.2d 1337 (3rd Cir. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Phillips Petroleum Company v. J. H. Adams, Robert O. Schnell, W. S. Etchieson, and Jack Gross v. J. H. Adams, Waylon Adams, and Arlwone H. Adams, Defendants-Appellees-Appellants (ca5, 1975-05-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Phillips Petroleum Company v. J. H. Adams, Robert O. Schnell, W. S. Etchieson, and Jack Gross v. J. H. Adams, Waylon Adams, and Arlwone H. Adams, Defendants-Appellees-Appellants
5th Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Boutte v. Chevron Oil Co., E.D.La.1970, 316 F.Supp. 524 , aff'd, 5 Cir. 1971, 442 F.2d 1337 . 10 The fact that the Adams family had no final and enforceable right to the suspense money in 1963-1967, however, does not foreclose the possibility that they retained the contingent right to the funds after their assignment to Schnell and that the FPC's 1970 order converted that contingent right into a right presently enforceable against Phillips.
discussed Cited "see" Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Adams
5th Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Boutte v. Chevron Oil Co., E.D.La.1970, 316 F.Supp. 524 , aff’d, 5 Cir. 1971, 442 F.2d 1337 . 10 The fact that the Adams family had no final and enforceable right to the suspense money in 1963 — 1967, however, does not foreclose the possibility that they retained the contingent right to the funds after their assignment to Schnell and that the FPC’s 1970 order converted that contingent right into a right presently enforceable against Phillips.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Edwin C. Boutte, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross
v.
Chevron Oil Company, Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. State Mineral Board, Third-Party
30674.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Jun 9, 1971.
442 F.2d 1337
Published

442 F.2d 1337

Edwin C. BOUTTE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross Appellees,
v.
CHEVRON OIL COMPANY, Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant,
v.
STATE MINERAL BOARD, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.

No. 30674.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 9, 1971.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Lansing L. Mitchell, Judge.

Charles C. Jaubert, Lake Charles, La., Paul Tate, Mamou, La., for Boutte.

L. K. Benson, John C. Christian, Charles A. Snyder, Milling, Saal, Benson, Woodward & Hillyer, Lawrence K. Benson, New Orleans, La., for Chevron Oil Co.

Richard A. Latimer, J. L. Hymel, Baton Rouge, La., for State Mineral Board.

Before GEWIN, BELL and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

This matter had the careful attention of the district court as is reflected in the findings of fact and conclusions of law of that court. See Boutte v. Chevron Oil Company, E.D.La., 1970, 316 F.Supp. 524.

2

It is apparent from a study of the record and the briefs of the parties that the district court did not commit error in any particular as charged in the appeal or cross-appeal. The judgment appealed from will therefore be affirmed with costs to be cast on appellants to the extent of 75 per cent and on Chevron to the extent of 25 per cent.

3

Affirmed on the appeal and cross-appeal.