Bess Caroline Molett, Individually & on Behalf of Her Minor Son, John Dreisch Molett, IV v. Penrod Drilling Co., & Gearench, Inc., Defendant-Third Party v. Columbus-Mckinnon, Inc., Third Party, 878 F.2d 829 (3rd Cir. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
Bess Caroline Molett, Individually & on Behalf of Her Minor Son, John Dreisch Molett, IV v. Penrod Drilling Co., & Gearench, Inc., Defendant-Third Party v. Columbus-Mckinnon, Inc., Third Party, 878 F.2d 829 (3rd Cir. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Vaughn v. Marine Transport Lines, Inc.
D. Maryland · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Molett v. Penrod Drilling Co., 826 F.2d 1419, 1429 (5th Cir.1987), reh’g denied, 878 F.2d 829 (5th Cir.1989); Parfait v. Jahncke Service, Inc., 484 F.2d 296 ; Jennings v. United States, 374 F.2d 983, 987 (4th Cir.1967).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. C.F.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare United States v. Barte, 868 F.2d 773 (5th Cir.), modified on other grounds, 878 F.2d 829 (5th Cir.1989) (“mere violation of Miranda’s, ‘prophylactic’ procedures does not trigger the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. CF
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare United States v. Barte, 868 F.2d 773 (5th Cir.), modified on other grounds, 878 F.2d 829 (5th Cir.1989) ("mere violation of Miranda's `prophylactic' procedures does not trigger the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bess Caroline Molett, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Son, John Dreisch Molett, IV
v.
Penrod Drilling Co., and Gearench, Inc., Defendant-Third Party v. Columbus-Mckinnon, Inc., Third Party
88-4136.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Jul 20, 1989.
878 F.2d 829
Published

878 F.2d 829

Bess Caroline MOLETT, Individually and on Behalf of her
minor son, John Dreisch Molett, IV, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
PENROD DRILLING CO., et al., Defendants.
and
GEARENCH, INC., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
COLUMBUS-McKINNON, INC., Third Party Defendant-Appellant.

No. 88-4136.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

July 20, 1989.

Kenneth G. Engerrand, G. Byron Sims, Houston, Tex., for third-party defendant-appellant.

Jeffrey Rhoades, Lafayette, La., for Gearench, Inc.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; John M. Duhe, Jr., Judge.ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion May 19, 5th Cir., 1989, 872 F.2d 1221)

Before THORNBERRY, KING, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

The Petitions for Rehearing are DENIED and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 35) the Suggestions for Rehearing En Banc are DENIED.

2

See, however, Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 2218, 104 L.Ed.2d 893 (1989) regarding the scope of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1653, which allows courts to cure defective diversity allegations.