Abelman v. Wright, 02-30344 (2003)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 02-30344
Visitors: 29
Filed: Apr. 10, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 10, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-30344 MOSES S ABELMAN; LOLA ABELMAN Plaintiffs - Appellees - Cross-Appellants v. BILLIE R WRIGHT; CALIBER ONE INDEMNITY CO Defendants - Appellants - Cross-Appelles - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles USDC No. 00-CV-2054 - Before KING, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and STEWAR
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 10, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-30344 MOSES S ABELMAN; LOLA ABELMAN Plaintiffs - Appellees - Cross-Appellants v. BILLIE R WRIGHT; CALIBER ONE INDEMNITY CO Defendants - Appellants - Cross-Appelles - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles USDC No. 00-CV-2054 - Before KING, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and STEWART..
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 10, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-30344 MOSES S ABELMAN; LOLA ABELMAN Plaintiffs - Appellees - Cross-Appellants v. BILLIE R WRIGHT; CALIBER ONE INDEMNITY CO Defendants - Appellants - Cross-Appelles -------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles USDC No. 00-CV-2054 -------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Both parties appeal the district court’s denial of their respective motions for judgment as a matter of law. We agree with the magistrate judge’s disposition of those motions set out in his Memorandum Ruling entered February 28, 2002. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 02-30344 -2-
Source: CourtListener
