Filed: Jun. 28, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-20150 Summary Calendar TEDDY FRANKLEN KNIPE and SHIRLEY ANN KNIPE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus QUANTUM CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (CA-H-94-3438) ( July 10, 1995 ) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DUHÉ and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Teddy Franklen Knipe and Shirley Ann Knipe appeal the Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of their personal i
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-20150 Summary Calendar TEDDY FRANKLEN KNIPE and SHIRLEY ANN KNIPE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus QUANTUM CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (CA-H-94-3438) ( July 10, 1995 ) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DUHÉ and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Teddy Franklen Knipe and Shirley Ann Knipe appeal the Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of their personal in..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-20150 Summary Calendar TEDDY FRANKLEN KNIPE and SHIRLEY ANN KNIPE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus QUANTUM CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (CA-H-94-3438) ( July 10, 1995 ) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DUHÉ and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Teddy Franklen Knipe and Shirley Ann Knipe appeal the Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of their personal injury complaint against Quantum Chemical Corporation. Teddy Franklen Knipe sustained injuries in a slip-and-fall accident on June 29, 1990. The instant complaint was not filed until October 6, 1994. The * Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. defendant urges a limitations defense. For the reasons assigned and on the basis of the authorities cited by the district court in its Order filed February 1, 1995, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2
