Deen v. Hickman

Supreme Court

Deen v. Hickman

358 U.S. 57, 79 S. Ct. 1, 3 L. Ed. 2d 28, 1958 U.S. LEXIS 252

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 27, 1958

Docket133 M

StatusPublished

Cited by31 cases

This text of 358 U.S. 57 (Deen v. Hickman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Deen v. Hickman, 358 U.S. 57, 79 S. Ct. 1, 3 L. Ed. 2d 28, 1958 U.S. LEXIS 252 (1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In Deen v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co., 353 U. S. 925, this Court, having held “that the proofs justified with reason the jury’s Conclusion that employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner’s injury,” reversed the judgment of the Texas Court of Civil Appeals. On remand, that court held that the question of negligence was foreclosed by this Court’s decision and affirmed a judgment in favor of the petitioner on condition that petitioner accept a remittitur. On review, the Texas Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Civil Appeals “with directions ... to adjudicate, upon its own independent evaluation of the evidence and wholly apart from the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, whether or not the jury finding of negligence of *58 the defendant ... is so against the weight and preponderance of the evidence as to require a new trial in the interest of justice, and, upon the basis of its said adjudication, to either affirm the judgment of the trial court or grant a new trial.” The determination of that issue was foreclosed by Deen v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co., supra. The motion for leave to file a petition requesting this Court to mandamus the Texas Supreme Court to conform its decision to our mandate in that case is granted. Assuming as we do that the Supreme Court of Texas will of course conform to the disposition we now make, we do not issue the writ of mandamus.

Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision- of this case.

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

Per Curiam.

In Deen v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co., 353 U. S. 925, this Court, having held “that the proofs justified with reason the jury’s Conclusion that employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner’s injury,” reversed the judgment of the Texas Court of Civil Appeals. On remand, that court held that the question of negligence was foreclosed by this Court’s decision and affirmed a judgment in favor of the petitioner on condition that petitioner accept a remittitur. On review, the Texas Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Civil Appeals “with directions ... to adjudicate, upon its own independent evaluation of the evidence and wholly apart from the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, whether or not the jury finding of negligence of *58 the defendant ... is so against the weight and preponderance of the evidence as to require a new trial in the interest of justice, and, upon the basis of its said adjudication, to either affirm the judgment of the trial court or grant a new trial.” The determination of that issue was foreclosed by Deen v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co., supra. The motion for leave to file a petition requesting this Court to mandamus the Texas Supreme Court to conform its decision to our mandate in that case is granted. Assuming as we do that the Supreme Court of Texas will of course conform to the disposition we now make, we do not issue the writ of mandamus.

Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision- of this case.

Maurice Armster, Josefina Cabrales, Clarence Carnes, William Clark, Nina Gorio, Patricia McCoy Michael Romberg, Maverick Veasey, Joseph Walters v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, and City of Riverside, City of Los Angeles, City of Rialto, Terry Ford, Sheman Block, Sheriff of Los Angeles, Jeff Launi, Daryl Gates, Police Chief of City of Los Angeles, Robert Evans, Real Parties in Interest Celine Rolerson, Dr. Mark Rolerson, M.D., Individually, Dr. Mark Rolerson, M.D., as the Natural Father of Elizabeth Rolerson, a Minor v. United States District Court for the District of Alaska, and the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, Volkswagenwerk A.G., A/K/A Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, a Foreign Corporation and Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Real Parties in Interest

806 F.2d 1347 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)

Armster v. United States District Court

806 F.2d 1347 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)

Texas West Oil and Gas Corp. v. Fitzgerald

726 P.2d 1056 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1986)

Craigo v. Hey

624 F. Supp. 414 (S.D. West Virginia, 1985)

In Re OSWALD

620 F.2d 1190 (Seventh Circuit, 1980)

Oswald v. McGarr

620 F.2d 1190 (Seventh Circuit, 1980)

Morland v. Sprecher

443 U.S. 709 (Supreme Court, 1979)

General Atomic Co. v. Felter

436 U.S. 493 (Supreme Court, 1978)

Bucolo v. Adkins

424 U.S. 641 (Supreme Court, 1976)

Puamier v. BARGE BT 1793

395 F. Supp. 1019 (E.D. Virginia, 1974)

Conover v. Montemuro

477 F.2d 1073 (Third Circuit, 1972)

Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Roberts

481 S.W.2d 798 (Texas Supreme Court, 1972)

Bishop v. Allied Finance Company

483 S.W.2d 46 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1972)

Roberts v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.

473 S.W.2d 567 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1971)

Cargo Ships & Tankers, Inc. v. McDonald

435 S.W.2d 866 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1968)

United States v. Watson

293 F. Supp. 694 (W.D. Missouri, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 U.S. 57, 79 S. Ct. 1, 3 L. Ed. 2d 28, 1958 U.S. LEXIS 252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deen-v-hickman-scotus-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack