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.

Cornhill Insurance Plc, Hansa Marine Insurance Co. U K Ltd., Anglo American Insurance Company, Limited, Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Valsamis Inc., Cheryl Gisentaner Americas Insurance Company v. Valsamis Inc., Cheryl Gisentaner Ocean Marine Indemnity Co. v. Valsamis Inc., Cheryl Gisentaner

Citations: 110 F.3d 795; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 5149; 1997 WL 120235Docket: 95-20898

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; March 9, 1997; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In the case 110 F.3d 795, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed multiple appeals involving Cornhill Insurance PLC, Hansa Marine Insurance Co. U.K. Ltd., Anglo American Insurance Company, and Underwriters at Lloyd's London against Valsamis Inc. and Cheryl Gisentaner, as well as an appeal from Americas Insurance Company and Ocean Marine Indemnity Co. against the same parties. The court considered motions for rehearing en banc following a prior decision. Ultimately, the court denied the requests for rehearing, indicating that no further review or reconsideration of the case would take place at the en banc level. This decision upheld the original ruling from the lower court, which was previously cited as 106 F.3d 801. The denial reflects the court's determination that the case did not warrant further examination by the full bench.

Legal Issues Addressed

Denial of Rehearing En Banc

Application: The court denied the motions for rehearing en banc, indicating that the case would not be reconsidered by the full bench.

Reasoning: Ultimately, the court denied the requests for rehearing, indicating that no further review or reconsideration of the case would take place at the en banc level.

Upholding of Lower Court Decision

Application: The decision to deny the rehearing en banc upheld the original ruling from the lower court.

Reasoning: This decision upheld the original ruling from the lower court, which was previously cited as 106 F.3d 801.