Filed: Jun. 16, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 16, 2005 _ Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-40880 _ GEORGE D. MALENFANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BEATTY STREET PROPERTIES, INC.; M/V HOUSTON PILOT BOAT NUMBER 1, Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 3:03-CV-434 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The court has considered this
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 16, 2005 _ Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-40880 _ GEORGE D. MALENFANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BEATTY STREET PROPERTIES, INC.; M/V HOUSTON PILOT BOAT NUMBER 1, Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 3:03-CV-434 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The court has considered this c..
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 16, 2005 _______________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-40880 _______________________ GEORGE D. MALENFANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BEATTY STREET PROPERTIES, INC.; M/V HOUSTON PILOT BOAT NUMBER 1, Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 3:03-CV-434 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The court has considered this case in light of the briefs, oral argument and pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, we find no reversible error of law or fact on liability and affirm that part of the district court’s decision for essentially the reasons it stated. The district court, however, failed to consider Beatty’s claim for maintenance and cure. We must remand for a resolution of that claim. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
