Opinion

Mrs. Wanda Mercer v. Paris Theriot

  • 316 F.2d 635
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Filed
May 9, 1963
Status
Published
Author
Bell
On the bench
Rives, Brown, Gewin, Bell, Tuttle, Hutcheson, Cameron, Jones, Wisdom
Cited by
5 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.7%

Reversed on other grounds by Mercer v. Theriot, 377 U.S. 152 (1964)

The opinion

GRIFFIN B. BELL, Circuit Judge

(dissenting).

I join in the dissent of Judge RIVES with the following additional statement. My view in this case, as in Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v. Roosth, 5 Cir., 1962, 306 F.2d 110 , is based on the sufficiency of the evidence. I feel that the evidence, at least on the second hearing of this case was sufficient to make a jury issue. I felt that the evidence was insufficient in Lincoln National. The losing party there, as must be implicit here, suffered the misfortune of being caught up in the law of the case doctrine. But here that doctrine should play no part as there was sufficient additional evidence over what was presented on the first trial to take the case to the jury.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.