Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

488 F.2d 1087

Docket No. 73-2962

Ray v. Texaco, Inc.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Dec. 18, 1973.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1973-12-18

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1981

3 federal appellate ·

4 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Bailey v. Rowan Drilling Co. · Cook v. Eizenman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1973-12-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Summary Calendar.*

¶2*1088Fred E. Salley, Frank C. Allen, Jr., New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.

¶3James E. Blazek, Joel L. Borrello, New Orleans, La., for Noble Drilling Corp.

¶4Joel T. Chaisson, Luling, La., for Gerald W. Ray.

¶5Stephen J. Hornyak, Dominick Sa-vona, Jr., Gretna, La., for Pan Mar Services.

¶6Before BELL, GODBOLD and GEE, Circuit Judges.

¶8PER CURIAM:

¶9The entry of judgment in the within matter adjudicated the liabilities of fewer than all of the parties in and to the litigation. There has been no entry of final judgment by the district court upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay as is required by Rule 54(b), F.R.Civ. Procedure. Hence, the judgment lacks the requisite finality to be appealable within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. International Harvester Credit Corporation v. Belding, 5 Cir., 1972, 462 F.2d 624; Bailey v. Rowan Drilling Company, 5 Cir., 1971, 441 F.2d 57; Cook v. Eizenman, 5 Cir., 1963, 312 F.2d 134.

¶10Dismissed.

/488/f2d/1087 · .json · Public domain