You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Leanna M. Graham, Wife of David Graham, Individually and on Behalf of Minor Child, Kayla J. Graham and as Curator of David Graham v. Amoco Oil Company

Citations: 28 F.3d 452; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20194; 1994 WL 397893Docket: 93-3190

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; August 1, 1994; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Leanna M. Graham, on behalf of herself, her minor child Kayla J. Graham, and as curator for David Graham, filed an appeal against Amoco Oil Company in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The case originated from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, presided over by Judge Peter Beer. The appeal was addressed by Circuit Judges Johnson, Garwood, and Jolly. The court denied the appellants' petition for rehearing regarding its previous opinion issued on May 26, 1994. However, Judge Johnson expressed concurrence only with the judgment. Additionally, the appellants' motion to postpone the consideration of the rehearing petition until the conclusion of the related case, Dupre v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., was also denied.

Legal Issues Addressed

Denial of Motion to Postpone

Application: The court rejected the appellants' request to delay the rehearing pending a related case's conclusion.

Reasoning: Additionally, the appellants' motion to postpone the consideration of the rehearing petition until the conclusion of the related case, Dupre v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., was also denied.

Denial of Petition for Rehearing

Application: The court denied the appellants' request to reconsider its prior decision.

Reasoning: The court denied the appellants' petition for rehearing regarding its previous opinion issued on May 26, 1994.

Judicial Concurrence

Application: Judge Johnson agreed with the judgment but did not join in the opinion.

Reasoning: However, Judge Johnson expressed concurrence only with the judgment.