Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

70 F.3d 26

Docket No. 94-60444.

Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Nov. 16, 1995.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1995-11-16

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[T]he panel is of the unanimous view that the opinion in this case specifically reflects a result under the Mississippi law of punitive damages and is not to be construed as a comment on any similar case that might arise under the law of any other state.”

quoted by 4 later decisions, including Gilman v. BHC Securities, Inc., 967 F. Supp. 173 - Addison v. Illinois Central Railroad

Relies on Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co. · McCallum Highlands, Ltd. v. Washington Capital Dus, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1995-11-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 152 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Gilman v. BHC Securities, Inc. (1997), Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2000)

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

730199520002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Richard M. Martin, Jr., Cummings, Cummings, & Dudenhefer, New Orleans, LA, for Appellants.

Michael B. Wallace, Walker W. Jones, III, Joseph A. Ziemianski, Todd C. Richter, Chuck D. Barlow, Phelps Dunbar, Jackson, MS, for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Tom S. Lee, Judge.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN

BANC

(Opinion August 29, 1995, 5th Cir., 1995; 63 F.3d 1326)

Before JOLLY, SMITH and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

The petition for rehearing is DENIED, and no member of the panel or judge in regular active service having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc (see FED.R.APP.P. 35 and 5TH CIR.R. 35), the suggestion for rehearing en banc is DENIED. Although the panel members have some disagreement regarding the interpretation of Mississippi law, the panel is of the unanimous view that the opinion in this case specifically reflects a result under the Mississippi law of punitive damages and is not to be construed as a comment on any similar case that might arise under the law of any other state.

/70/f3d/26 · .json · Public domain