Filed: May 12, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-30658 SEITEL GEOPHYSICAL INCORPORATED, doing business as Eagle Geophysical, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant, versus GREENHILL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee. (consolidated with) No. 96-31148 SEITEL GEOPHYSICAL INCORPORATED, doing business as Eagle Geophysical, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GREENHILL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-30658 SEITEL GEOPHYSICAL INCORPORATED, doing business as Eagle Geophysical, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant, versus GREENHILL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee. (consolidated with) No. 96-31148 SEITEL GEOPHYSICAL INCORPORATED, doing business as Eagle Geophysical, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GREENHILL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District ..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-30658
SEITEL GEOPHYSICAL INCORPORATED,
doing business as Eagle Geophysical,
Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant,
versus
GREENHILL PETROLEUM CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee.
(consolidated with)
No. 96-31148
SEITEL GEOPHYSICAL INCORPORATED,
doing business as Eagle Geophysical,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GREENHILL PETROLEUM CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(95-CV-1648-K)
May 5, 1997
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and FOLSOM,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:**
Greenhill Petroleum Corporation appeals an adverse judgment awarding
damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and prejudgment interest to Seitel Geophysical,
Inc., d/b/a Eagle Geophysical, in this contract dispute action. Having considered
the briefs, oral arguments of counsel, and pertinent parts of the record, on the facts
as found, authorities cited, and analysis made by the district court in its Order and
Reasons of June 10, 1996, the decision on the merits is affirmed. The judgment,
however, is amended to reflect that the prejudgment interest is to be computed from
the date of the loss.1 The matter is returned to the district court in order that this
compensation may properly be made a part of the judgment.
AFFIRMED as AMENDED.
*
David Folsom, Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
**
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published
and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
1
Probo II London v. Isla Santay MV,
92 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 1996).
2