Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. T. L. James & Co., Inc., 256 F.2d 344 (5th Cir. 1958). · Go Syfert
Search
Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. T. L. James & Co., Inc., 256 F.2d 344 (5th Cir. 1958). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Johnson v. Bechtel Associates Professional Corp. (cadc, 1986-09-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. Bechtel Associates Professional Corp.
D.C. Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
James & Co., 256 F.2d 344, 345 (5th Cir.1958). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Paul D. Johnson v. Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, D.C. Howard L. Eighmey v. Bechtel Civil and Minerals, Inc. Calvin Walker v. Bechtel Civil and Minerals, Inc. John Warren Clanagan v. Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, D.C. Paul D. Johnson v. Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, D.C. Calvin Walker and Rena Walker v. Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, D.C. John Warren Clanagan v. Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, D.C. Howard L. Eighmey v. Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, D.C. Stanley Wilmes v. Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, D.C. Paul D. Johnson v. Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, D.C. James H. Buchanan and Shirley Buchanan, His Wife v. Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, D.C. Stanley Wilmes v. Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, D.C. Calvin Walker v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. John Warren Clanagan v. Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, D.C. Howard L. Eighmey v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. Glenwood Williams v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
D.C. Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
James & Co., 256 F.2d 344, 345 (5th Cir.1958) 24 See Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr, 383 F.2d 166, 178 (2d Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 956 , 88 S.Ct. 1038 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1151 (1968) 25 This denial of the petition for rehearing is not an exercise of appellate jurisdiction that might interrupt our previous remand, the subsequent entry of judgments by the District Court, or the ensuing appeals in this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE LINE COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
T. L. JAMES & CO., Inc., Et Al., Appellees
16469_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jun 6, 1958.
256 F.2d 344
1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4342
Selim B. Lemle, New Orleans, La., for appellant., Charles E. Dunbar, III, New Orleans, La., for appellees.
Hutcheson, Borah, Tuttle.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Suggesting that by its opinion in River Terminals Corp. v. Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co., 253 F.2d 922, this court has reached an opinion contrary to the result heretofore reached in this case, movant has filed a petition in this cause for leave to file a motion seeking extraordinary relief, wherein, asking the court “to recall its mandate herein to the district court and, in the court’s discretion, either:

“A. consider this case and render a judgment consonant with the one rendered in the River Terminals Corporation-Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Company case, reversing the interlocutory decree of the District Court and ordering this case remanded to the District Court in order to afford the appellees herein reasonable opportunity to seek administrative action before the Interstate Commerce Commission to test the validity of the exculpatory provisions in the tariff of Mississippi Valley Barge Line Company, or otherwise to give full effect to the exculpatory clauses; or, alternatively,
[*345] “B. pursuant to Rule 29 of the Court’s rules [28 U.S.C.A.], grant leave to file a petition for rehearing and a brief in support thereof; or, alternatively,
“C. grant leave to mover to file in the District Court a ‘bill of review’ or ‘libel of review.’ ”

Upon consideration thereof, it is ordered that, for the reason pointed out in petitioner’s motion, that the cause is pending in the district court for final decision and on an appeal therefrom, this court has power to, and will, if then of the opinion it should do so, reverse its former decision and judgment and decide the cause as to it may then seem just and right, Seagraves v. Wallace, 5 Cir., 69 F.2d 163, and resort to extraordinary relief is unnecessary, the leave to file be, and the same is hereby denied, and the clerk is directed to return to the sender the petition for leave to file and the attached and accompanying papers.