Thompson v. L S Womack Inc, 06-60124 (2007)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 06-60124
Visitors: 50
Filed: Jun. 12, 2007
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 12, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-60124 RONALD THOMPSON, Etc., ET AL Plaintiffs RONALD THOMPSON, Individually and doing business as Forestry Contractors Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellee FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PICAYUNE Intervenor Plaintiff - Appellee VERSUS L S WOMACK, INC. Defendant - Counter Claimant - Appellant ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO. Defendant - App
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit June 12, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-60124 RONALD THOMPSON, Etc., ET AL Plaintiffs RONALD THOMPSON, Individually and doing business as Forestry Contractors Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellee FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PICAYUNE Intervenor Plaintiff - Appellee VERSUS L S WOMACK, INC. Defendant - Counter Claimant - Appellant ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO. Defendant - Appe..
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit June 12, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-60124 RONALD THOMPSON, Etc., ET AL Plaintiffs RONALD THOMPSON, Individually and doing business as Forestry Contractors Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellee FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PICAYUNE Intervenor Plaintiff - Appellee VERSUS L S WOMACK, INC. Defendant - Counter Claimant - Appellant ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO. Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg 2:02-CV-571 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 After reviewing the record in this case and considering the briefs of the parties and argument of counsel, we are satisfied that the judgment entered on the remitted verdict is supported by substantial evidence. The district court committed no reversible error and its judgment is therefore affirmed. AFFIRMED. 1 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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
