Filed: Jan. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-10078 _ ROYAL LLOYDS OF TEXAS; ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus QUINN-L FINANCIAL CORP. et al, Defendants-Appellants. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (3:90-CV-550-H) _ December 30, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The court has carefully considered appellants’ position in light of the briefs, oral argument, pertinent por
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-10078 _ ROYAL LLOYDS OF TEXAS; ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus QUINN-L FINANCIAL CORP. et al, Defendants-Appellants. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (3:90-CV-550-H) _ December 30, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The court has carefully considered appellants’ position in light of the briefs, oral argument, pertinent port..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________________ No. 96-10078 _______________________ ROYAL LLOYDS OF TEXAS; ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus QUINN-L FINANCIAL CORP. et al, Defendants-Appellants. _________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (3:90-CV-550-H) _________________________________________________________________ December 30, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The court has carefully considered appellants’ position in light of the briefs, oral argument, pertinent portions of the record, and the extensive previous history of the case in this court. Having done so, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying appellants’ Rule 60(b)(5) motion * Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. for relief from judgment, and we affirm on essentially the basis articulated by the district court. AFFIRM.
