Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Boutte v. Chevron Oil Co.

Boutte v. Chevron Oil Co., 442 F.2d 1337 (5th Cir. 1971)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1971-06-09
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: This matter had the careful attention of the district court as is reflected in the findings of fact and conclusions of law of that court. See Boutte v. Chevron Oil Company, E.D.La., 1970, 316 F.Supp. 524. It is apparent from a study of the record and the briefs of the parties that the district court did not commit error in any particular as charged in the appeal or cross-appeal. The judgment appealed from will therefore be affirmed with costs to be cast on appellants to the extent of 75 per cent and on Chevron to the extent of 25 per cent.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Boutte v. Chevron Oil Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
BOUTTE v. CHEVRON OIL COMPANY,442 F.2d 1337(5th Cir. 1971)
Edwin C. BOUTTE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross Appellees, v. CHEVRON
OIL COMPANY, Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant, v.
STATE MINERAL BOARD, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.
No. 30674.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 9, 1971.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Lansing L. Mitchell, Judge.
Charles C. Jaubert, Lake Charles, La., Paul Tate, Mamou, La., for Boutte.

L.K. Benson, John C. Christian, Charles A. Snyder, Milling, Saal, Benson, Woodward Hillyer, Lawrence K. Benson, New Orleans, La., for Chevron Oil Co.

Richard A. Latimer, J.L. Hymel, Baton Rouge, La., for State Mineral Board.Page 1338
Before GEWIN, BELL and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This matter had the careful attention of the district court as is reflected in the findings of fact and conclusions of law of that court. See Boutte v. Chevron Oil Company, E.D.La., 1970,316 F. Supp. 524.

It is apparent from a study of the record and the briefs of the parties that the district court did not commit error in any particular as charged in the appeal or cross-appeal. The judgment appealed from will therefore be affirmed with costs to be cast on appellants to the extent of 75 per cent and on Chevron to the extent of 25 per cent.

Affirmed on the appeal and cross-appeal.Page 1339