Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Port Ship Svc Inc v. Warren B MT, 00-30362 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 00-30362 Visitors: 32
Filed: Jun. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ m 00-30362 _ PORT SHIP SERVICE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant- Cross-Appellee, VERSUS WARREN B MT, HER ENGINES, TACKLE, ETC., IN REM; PROGRESSIVE BARGE LINES, INC.; TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees- Cross-Appellants, UNIDENTIFIED PARTY, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana _ June 11, 2001 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* In this law
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________ m 00-30362 _______________ PORT SHIP SERVICE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant- Cross-Appellee, VERSUS WARREN B MT, HER ENGINES, TACKLE, ETC., IN REM; PROGRESSIVE BARGE LINES, INC.; TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees- Cross-Appellants, UNIDENTIFIED PARTY, Defendant-Appellee. _________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana _________________________ June 11, 2001 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* In this lawsuit resulting from an allision, liability has been conceded, so the appeal raises only issues regarding the amount of damage. After a bench trial, the district court found that plaintiff Port Ship Service, Inc., had unreasonably failed to minimize its damages; the court reduced the award accordingly. The court also depreciated only 50% of the repair costs, reasoning that part of the repairs were made using parts salvaged from the existing dock and therefore did not enhance the useful life of those parts. Port Shi p appeals, and defendants cross-appeal. We have reviewed the briefs and applicable law and pertinent portions of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. We con- clude that the district court did not err in its findings and conclusions. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer