Gus R. Legros & Betty Legros, Cross-Appellants v. Panther Servs. Grp., Inc., Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. Of Pittsburgh, Cross-Appellee, 874 F.2d 953 (5th Cir. 1989).
Search
Gus R. Legros & Betty Legros, Cross-Appellants v. Panther Servs. Grp., Inc., Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. Of Pittsburgh, Cross-Appellee, 874 F.2d 953 (5th Cir. 1989). Book View Copy Cite
⚠ Negative Treatment Vacated 2 negative ▼
Gus R. LEGROS and Betty Legros, Plaintiffs-Appellees Cross-Appellants,
v.
PANTHER SERVICES GROUP, INC. Et Al., Defendants-Appellees, National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee
87-4370.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
May 22, 1989.
874 F.2d 953
John A. Jeansonne, Jr., Jeansonne & Bri-ney, Susan A. Daigle, and Charles A. Mouton, Preis, Kraft, LaGorde & Daigle, Lafayette, La., for defendant-appellant cross-ap-pellee., Robert B. Acomb, Jr. and Jefferson R. Tillery, Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitev-ent, Carrere & Denegre, New Orleans, La., Texaco-Electro-Coal Transfer Corp., ami-cus curiae in support of defendant-appellant cross-appellee., Eileen R. Madrid, New Orleans, La., for Rowan Companies, Zapata Off-Shore, Energy Service Co., Global Marine Drilling Co. and Santa Fe Drilling Co., Terrell D. Fowler, Cox, Cox, Townsley & Fowler, Lake Charles, La., for defendants-appellees., Kenneth G. Engerrand, Houston, Tex. and David W. Robertson, A.W. Walker Centennial Chair, Univ. of Texas Law School, Austin, Tex., amicus curiae, academic affiliation.
Clark, Wisdom, Gee, Rubin, Reavley, Politz, King, Johnson, Williams, Garwood, Jolly, Higginbotham, Davis, Jones, Smith, Duhe.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

(Amended Order)

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and WISDOM, GEE, RUBIN, REAVLEY, POLITZ, KING, JOHNSON, . WILLIAMS, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH and DUHE, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT:

The defendant-appellant, National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh has filed an agreed motion to withdraw and dismiss its appeal in light of the subject matter of this appeal having been resolved and settled between the parties on appeal. The Court having vacated the panel opinion by granting rehearing en banc, 863 F.2d 345 (5th Cir.1988), the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.