green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
24.2 score
“once trial began, the summary judgment motion effectively became moot.”
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 45 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Brown v. Slenker
once trial began, the summary judgment motion effectively became moot.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Abrial Goen v. Keith T. Delk, ET AL.
Case Co., 22 F.3d 568, 572 (5th Cir. 1994))); see also Stevens v. Walthall, No. CIV 98-0396 BB/LCS, 1999 WL 35809508, at *1 (D.N.M.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Warren Prideaux v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Case Co., Inc., 22 F.3d 568, 572 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
James H. Robertson v. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
Black, 22 F.3d at 572.2 III.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kemp v. Belanger
Case Co., Inc., 22 F.3d 568, 569-70 (5th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kurk v. Los Rios Classified Employees Association
Cal. June 19, 2015) (quoting Black, 3 22 F.3d at 572); accord Lind v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 254 F.3d 1281 , 1285 (11th Cir. 2001). 4 III.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Guthrie v. Garland
Cal. June 19, 2015) (quoting Black, 22 F.3d at 572); 21 see also Doutherd v. Montesdeoca, No. 2:17-cv-02225-KJM-JDP, 2020 WL 6043952 , at *11 22 (E.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Aperia Solutions Inc v. OLB Group Inc
Case Co., Inc., 22 F.3d 568, 572 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 ). 29 Id. (quotation and alteration removed). 30 The Court will rule on Evance, Inc.’s demand for a jury trial in a separate substantive order.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lull v. County of Sacramento
Case Co., 22 F.3d 568 , 572 (5th Cir. 1994)), “even in the absence of a factual dispute[,]” 11 Rheumatology Diagnostics Lab., Inc v. Aetna, Inc., No. 12-05847, 2015 WL 3826713 , at *4 (N.D. 12 Cal. June 19, 2015) (quoting Black, 22 F.3d at 572). 13 2.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Langille v. Berthel, Fisher & Company Financial Services, Inc.
Cal. June 19, 2015) 25 (quoting Black, 22 F.3d at 572); accord Lind v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 254 F.3d 1281 , 1285 26 (11th Cir. 2001). 27 28 1 III.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc. v. Global Aerospace, Inc.
Cal. June 19, 2015) (quoting Black, 22 F.3d at 572); 21 accord Lind v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 254 F.3d 1281 , 1285 (11th Cir. 2001). 22 Under Rule 56(d), when “a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for 23 specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer 24 considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take 25 discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.” Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ogamba v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Cal. June 19, 2015) (quoting Black, 22 F.3d at 572); 4 accord Lind v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 254 F.3d 1281 , 1285 (11th Cir. 2001). 5 III.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Buckhalter v. City of Vacaville
Cal. June 19, 2015) (quoting Black, 22 F.3d at 572); accord Lind 26 v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 254 F.3d 1281 , 1285 (11th Cir. 2001). 27 28 1 III.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Copart, Inc. v. Sparta Consulting, Inc.
Cal. June 19, 2015) (quoting Black, 22 F.3d at 572); accord Lind v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 254 F.3d 1281 , 1285 (11th Cir. 2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas McDonnell, III v. Sandy Miller
Case Co., Inc., 22 F.3d 568, 570 (5th Cir. 1994)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Odes Ho Kim v. Dome Entertainment Center, Inc.
Black, 22 F.3d at 570 (reaffirming Wells v. Hico Indep.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
May v. Mississippi Department of Corrections
This rule rests on the notion that “it is particularly difficult to understand how the ends either of justice or of orderly procedure would be furthered were we to hold that the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment when the facts adduced at the full trial on the merits adequately support the findings and judgment for the defendants.” Id. at 571 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jane Doe v. V. Leroy Young
(2×)
Case Co., Inc., 22 F.3d 568, 573 (5th Cir.1994) (quoting the advisory committee’s notes to Fed.R.Evid. 403) (“Where a party claims unfair surprise ‘the granting of a continuance is a more appropriate remedy than exclusion of the evidence.’ ”); see also F & S Offshore, Inc. v. K.O.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Unger v. Taylor
Case Co., Inc., 22 F.3d 568, 570 (5th Cir.1994); see also Becker v. Tidewater, Inc., 586 F.3d 358 , 365 n. 4 (5th Cir.2009) (noting that we normally decline to review a district court’s denial of summary judgment after full trial on the merits). 8 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Unger v. Taylor
Case Co., Inc., 22 F.3d 568, 570 (5th Cir. 1994); see also Becker v. Tidewater, Inc., 586 F.3d 358 , 365 n.4 (5th Cir. 2009) (noting that we normally decline to review a district court’s denial of summary judgment after full trial on the merits). 8 Black, 22 F.3d at 571. 9 Threadgill v. Prudential Sec.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Becker v. Tidewater, Inc.
Case Co., Inc., 22 F.3d 568, 572 (5th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Becker v. Tidewater, Inc.
Case Co., Inc., 22 F.3d 568, 572 (5th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp.
Case Co., Inc., 22 F.3d 568, 572 (5th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gibson v. Wright
Case Co., Inc., 22 F.3d 568, 569-70 (5th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Moore v. Frazier
Case Co., Inc., 22 F.3d 568, 570 (5th Cir. 1994).1 B.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mitchell v. St Paul Fire Marine
Case Co., Inc., 22 F.3d 568, 570 (5th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Golden Triangle
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In particular, we are concerned that our review of an order denying a motion for summary judgment condones a litigation strategy that disregards the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(a) and 50(b), and 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b) (1994). 8 See Black, 22 F.3d at 571.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Golden Triangle
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In particular, we are concerned that our review of an order denying a motion for summary judgment condones a litigation strategy that disregards the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(a) and 50(b), and 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b) (1994). 8 See Black, 22 F.3d at 571.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Beneficial Personnel Services of Texas, Inc. v. Rey
Case Co., Inc., 22 F.3d 568, 573 (5th Cir.1994).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Chesapeake Paper Products Company, Successor in Interest to Chesapeake Corporation v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, & Third Party v. Tidewater Construction Corporation, Third Party
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
As the Fifth Circuit reasoned, "It makes no sense whatever to reverse a judgment on the verdict where the trial evidence was sufficient merely because at summary judgment it was not." Black, 22 F.3d at 572.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Chesapeake Paper Products Co. v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
As the Fifth Circuit reasoned, “It makes no sense whatever to reverse a judgment on the verdict where the trial evidence was sufficient merely because at summary judgment it was not.” Black, 22 F.3d at 572.
cited
Cited "see"
Songcharoen v. Plastic & Hand Surgery Associates, P.L.L.C.
See supra Part H.A.1., Black, 22 F.3d at 572.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hernandez Nodarse v. United States
See Randall v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 13 F.3d 888 , 898 n. 5 (5th Cir.), modified on other grounds, 22 F.3d 568 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 994 , 115 S.Ct. 498 , 130 L.Ed.2d 408 (1994); Perez v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 967 F.Supp. 920, 925 (S.D.Tex.1997); Jett Racing & Sales, Inc. v. Transamerica Commercial Fin.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gaspard v. Offshore Crane
Accord Randall v. Chevron U.S.A., 13 F.3d 888, 907-09 (5th Cir.), modified on other grounds, 22 F.3d 568 (5th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 115 S. Ct. 5 , cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 498 (1994); Stockstill v. Petty Ray Geophysical Div., 888 F.2d 1493 , 1496-97 (5th Cir. 1989); Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. McMoRan Offshore Exploration Co., 877 F.2d 1214, 1228 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 332 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Raymond Gaspard v. Offshore Crane and Equipment, Inc., a Unit of Amclyde Engineered Products, Inc., Seacor Marine, Inc., Anglo-American Insurance Company, Limited, Third Party v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., Defendant-Third Party
Accord Randall v. Chevron U.S.A., 13 F.3d 888, 907-09 (5th Cir.), modified on other grounds, 22 F.3d 568 (5th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 512 U.S. 1265 , 115 S.Ct. 5 , 129 L.Ed.2d 906 , cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 498 , 130 L.Ed.2d 408 (1994); Stockstill v. Petty Ray Geophysical Div., 888 F.2d 1493 , 1496-97 (5th Cir.1989); Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. McMoRan Offshore Exploration Co., 877 F.2d 1214, 1228 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 937 , 110 S.Ct. 332 , 107 L.Ed.2d 321 (1989). 20 If the policy had retained the "as owner" language, AngloAmerican would have no responsibilit…
discussed
Cited "see"
Gaspard v. Offshore Crane & Equipment, Inc.
Accord Randall v. Chevron U.S.A., 13 F.3d 888, 907-09 (5th Cir.), modified on other grounds, 22 F.3d 568 (5th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 512 U.S. 1265 , 115 S.Ct. 5 , 129 L.Ed.2d 906 , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 498 , 130 L.Ed.2d 408 (1994); Stockstill v. Petty Ray Geophysical Div., 888 F.2d 1493 , 1496-97 (5th Cir.1989); Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. McMoRan Offshore Exploration Co., 877 F.2d 1214, 1228 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 937 , 110 S.Ct. 332 , 107 L.Ed.2d 321 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
General Signal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant
See Black, 22 F.3d at 572.
discussed
Cited "see"
65 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 580, 65 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,269 Richard D. Watson v. Amedco Steel, Incorporated, Doing Business as Amedco Casket Stamping Company
See Black, 22 F.3d at 571-72. 13 Moreover, review of the issue presented here would be particularly inappropriate in light of our repeated admonitions that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework falls away once there has been a jury trial and verdict.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jourdan v. Schenker International Inc.
P. 28(a)(9)(A) (noting that an appellee’s brief must contain the appellee’s "contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the [appellee] relies”); see also Randall v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 13 F.3d 888, 911 (5th Cir.1994) (declining to reach the merits of an appellant's argument where the appellant’s brief failed to provide citations to relevant authorities and parts of the record), modified on denial of reh'g Randall v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 22 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 295 (5th Cir. 19…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pahuta v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc.
See Whalen v. Unit Rig, Inc., 974 F.2d 1248, 1251 (10th Cir.1992). 20 Inasmuch as a party is not permitted to appeal an issue that was not properly raised before the district court at trial in a motion for judgment as a matter of law, "it would be odd indeed for us to consider whether summary judgment was properly denied in a case where the identical issue was presented at trial and the requisite motions for judgment as a matter of law were not made." Watson, 29 F.3d at 279; see also Black, 22 F.3d at 571-72 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pahuta v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc.
Inasmuch as a party is not permitted to appeal an issue that was not properly raised before the district court at trial in a motion for judgment as a matter of law, “it would be odd indeed for us to consider whether summary judgment was properly denied in a case where the identical issue was presented at trial and the requisite motions for judgment as a matter of law were not made.” Watson, 29 F.3d at 279; see also Black, 22 F.3d at 571-72 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Hawkins Sandblasting, Inc. v. JSI
Compare Randall v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 13 F.3d 888 , modified, 22 F.3d 568 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Barbara S. Randall, on Her Own Behalf and as Personal Representative of the Estate of the Decedent, Theodore F. Randall, Jr., and on the Behalf of the Children, Rod Anthony Randall and Holly Leann Randall, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross
v.
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross v. Sea Savage, Inc., Defendants-Appellants-Cross v. American Home Assurance Company
v.
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross v. Sea Savage, Inc., Defendants-Appellants-Cross v. American Home Assurance Company
91-9567.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
May 26, 1994.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (1)
1994 A.M.C. 2492
Barbara S. RANDALL, On Her Own Behalf and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of the Decedent, Theodore F.
Randall, Jr., and on the Behalf of the Children, Rod Anthony
Randall and Holly Leann Randall, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellee,
v.
CHEVRON, U.S.A., INC., Defendant-Appellee-Cross Appellant,
v.
SEA SAVAGE, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants-Cross Appellees,
v.
AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 91-9567.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
May 26, 1994.
J. Fredrick Kessenich, John F. Emmett, Emmett, Cobb, Waits & Kessenich, New Orleans, LA, for American Home Assur. Co. and Sea Savage, et al.
Randy J. Ungar, Jennifer F. Nicaud, New Orleans, LA, for Barbara S. Randall.
Neal D. Hobson, John R. Santa Cruz, Milling, Benson, Woodward, Hillyer, Pierson & Miller, New Orleans, LA, for Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Morey L. Sear, Judge.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion February 11, 1994, 5 Cir., 1994, 13 F.3d 888)
Before KING and JOLLY, Circuit Judges and PARKER,[*] District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
[*~568]1
The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and the Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 35), the Suggestions for Rehearing En Banc are also DENIED.
2
We withdraw footnote 6 of our opinion in this case. Additionally, we revise our mandate, part IV of the opinion, to read as follows:
[*~573]3
For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court's award for pain and suffering and REMAND for the granting of a remittitur to $500,000 or a new trial on damages at Sea Savage's option. We REVERSE the district court's holding that Chevron is entitled to indemnification from Sea Savage under the time charter for those damages attributable to Chevron's own negligence. We also REVERSE the district court's denial of attorneys' fees to Chevron for its defense of the claim for punitive damages and REMAND for determination of those fees. In all other respects the judgment of the district court, including the order that Sea Savage reimburse Chevron for 75% of the workers' compensation payments made on behalf of Theodore F. Randall, is AFFIRMED. Costs shall be borne by Chevron and Sea Savage.
*
Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation