Legal Opinion
Dupre v. Penrod Drilling Corp.
District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Decided March 23, 1992No. 90-2729PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER AND REASONS
ARCENEAUX, District Judge.
Third-party defendant, Total Minatome Corporation (“TMC”), filed a motion for summary judgment seeking contractual indemnity from defendant, Penrod Drilling Corporation (“Penrod”). Penrod filed a timely opposition and a cross-motion for summary judgment seeking contractual indemnity from TMC. Having reviewed the memoranda in support, the oppositions, and the applicable law, the court now rules.
BACKGROUND
The court finds the following facts to be undisputed. Hubert Dupre filed this action on July 30, 1990, alleging damages from injuries sustained while…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Offshore Co. v. RobisonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1959
- Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Construction Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1987
- Herb's Welding, Inc. v. GraySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Theriot v. Bay Drilling Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
- Maxus Exploration Co. v. Moran Bros., Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1991
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Reagan v. McGee Drilling Corp.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1997
- Weber Energy Corp. v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1998
- Ken Petroleum Corp. v. Questor Drilling Corp., Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1998
- Dupre v. Penrod Drilling Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1993
- Weber Energy Corp. v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1998