Elmwood Dry Dock v. H&A Trading Co Ltd ( 1999 )


Menu:
  • UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________________ No. 98-30735 _______________________ ELMWOOD DRY DOCK AND REPAIR, Plaintiff, ORBI SA, as successor in interest of Tel-Com, Ltd. Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, versus H&A TRADING CO., LTD., ET AL., Defendants, HARRY CARAMANOS; ATHENA CARAMANOS, in their capacities as the Heirs-at-Law of Sybill Renate Caramanos; PETER CARAMANOS, Defendants-Appellees, PETER CARAMANOS, Third Party Defendant-Appellee. ORBI SA, as successor in interest of Tel-Com, Ltd., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus PETER CARAMANOS, individually and in his capacity as a director and co-manager of Caribbean Cargoes, Ltd., also known as Petros Karamanos; Et. Al., Defendants, PETER CARAMANOS, individually and in his capacity as a director and co-manager of Caribbean Cargoes, Ltd., also known as Petros Karamanos, Defendant-Appellee, ______________________________ ORBI SA, Plaintiff, versus OCTAGON MARINE SERVICES, INC., ET AL., Defendants, ______________________________ ORBI SA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus PETER CARAMANOS; ET AL., Defendants, PETER CARAMANOS, Defendant-Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (97-CV-191-K) _________________________________________________________________ June 10, 1999 Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The court has carefully considered the issues raised on appeal by appellant. Having done so, we are unable to discern any reversible errors of law or fact. Whether this court would have found the pertinent facts or damages exactly as the trial court did is not material, inasmuch as the appellant has not borne the burden of showing clear error. The trial court’s findings are heavily affected by its ability to weigh the credibility of the witnesses and to review the evidence firsthand. Moreover, the trial court’s legal analysis, as clarified by the opinion concerning post-trial motions, was adequate to address appellant’s causes of action. * 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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 The judgement is AFFIRMED. 3

Document Info

Docket Number: 98-30735

Filed Date: 6/11/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021