Albert Jack Fletcher v. Cato Hightower

Fifth Circuit

Albert Jack Fletcher v. Cato Hightower

381 F.2d 371, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5293

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 21, 1967

Docket23249_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 381 F.2d 371 (Albert Jack Fletcher v. Cato Hightower) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albert Jack Fletcher v. Cato Hightower, 381 F.2d 371, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5293 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Since the order dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim was entered essentially on the basis of facts set forth in the answer which made the dismissal premature, we vacate that order. But in so doing we express no opinion as to the merits of the claim, nor do we even intimate whether it will survive summary judgment or warrant a partial or full blown trial. See Tyler v. Peel Corp., 5 Cir., 1967, 371 F.2d 788, 791-92; Chagas v. Berry, 5 Cir., 1966, 369 F.2d 637, 642; Garrett v. American Airlines, Inc., 5 Cir., 1964, 332 F.2d 939, *372 944, 3 A.L.R.3d 930; River Brand Rice Mills Inc. v. General Foods Corp., 5 Cir., 1964, 334 F.2d 770, 773; Duke v. Sun Oil Co., 5 Cir., 1963, 320 F.2d 853, 866; Smoot v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 1962, 299 F.2d 525, 534; Camilla Cotton Oil Co. v. Spencer Kellogg & Sons, 5 Cir., 1958, 257 F.2d 162, 167; Carss v. Outboard Marine Corp., 5 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 690, 691; Millet v. Godchaux Sugars, 5 Cir., 1957, 241 F.2d 264, 267; Gulf Oil Corp. v. Wright, 5 Cir., 1956, 236 F.2d 46, 53.

Vacated and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Since the order dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim was entered essentially on the basis of facts set forth in the answer which made the dismissal premature, we vacate that order. But in so doing we express no opinion as to the merits of the claim, nor do we even intimate whether it will survive summary judgment or warrant a partial or full blown trial. See Tyler v. Peel Corp., 5 Cir., 1967, 371 F.2d 788, 791-92; Chagas v. Berry, 5 Cir., 1966, 369 F.2d 637, 642; Garrett v. American Airlines, Inc., 5 Cir., 1964, 332 F.2d 939, *372 944, 3 A.L.R.3d 930; River Brand Rice Mills Inc. v. General Foods Corp., 5 Cir., 1964, 334 F.2d 770, 773; Duke v. Sun Oil Co., 5 Cir., 1963, 320 F.2d 853, 866; Smoot v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 1962, 299 F.2d 525, 534; Camilla Cotton Oil Co. v. Spencer Kellogg & Sons, 5 Cir., 1958, 257 F.2d 162, 167; Carss v. Outboard Marine Corp., 5 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 690, 691; Millet v. Godchaux Sugars, 5 Cir., 1957, 241 F.2d 264, 267; Gulf Oil Corp. v. Wright, 5 Cir., 1956, 236 F.2d 46, 53.

Vacated and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

381 F.2d 371, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-jack-fletcher-v-cato-hightower-ca5-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack