Brunswick Corporation v. Howell W. Clements

Sixth Circuit

Brunswick Corporation v. Howell W. Clements

443 F.2d 374, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6696

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedOctober 30, 1970

Docket20763

StatusPublished

This text of 443 F.2d 374 (Brunswick Corporation v. Howell W. Clements) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brunswick Corporation v. Howell W. Clements, 443 F.2d 374, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6696 (6th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

A motion to dismiss this appeal has been filed by defendant-appellee and the case has been assigned pursuant to Rule 3(e) of this Court. The appeal is from the order entered in this action by the District Court on the Mandate of the Court of Appeals and from the order of the District Court refusing to grant a further hearing premised on plaintiff-appellant’s interpretation of this Court’s opinion in the original appeal (Brunswick Corporation v. Howell W. Clements, Trustee, No. 19,689, 6 Cir., 424 F.2d 673). The District Court, in denying the *375 request for a hearing, held that appellant’s interpretation of this Court’s opinion was incorrect; raised questions not pertinent to the controlling issue; and that the opinion and mandate of this Court was clear. We agree.

The motion to dismiss filed by appellee is sustained and it is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

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

ORDER

A motion to dismiss this appeal has been filed by defendant-appellee and the case has been assigned pursuant to Rule 3(e) of this Court. The appeal is from the order entered in this action by the District Court on the Mandate of the Court of Appeals and from the order of the District Court refusing to grant a further hearing premised on plaintiff-appellant’s interpretation of this Court’s opinion in the original appeal (Brunswick Corporation v. Howell W. Clements, Trustee, No. 19,689, 6 Cir., 424 F.2d 673). The District Court, in denying the *375 request for a hearing, held that appellant’s interpretation of this Court’s opinion was incorrect; raised questions not pertinent to the controlling issue; and that the opinion and mandate of this Court was clear. We agree.

The motion to dismiss filed by appellee is sustained and it is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 F.2d 374, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brunswick-corporation-v-howell-w-clements-ca6-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack