Dixie-Land Iron & Metal Company, Inc. v. Piedmont Iron & Metal Company and Philip Goldberg

Fifth Circuit

Dixie-Land Iron & Metal Company, Inc. v. Piedmont Iron & Metal Company and Philip Goldberg

583 F.2d 717

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 6, 1978

Docket76-3355

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 583 F.2d 717 (Dixie-Land Iron & Metal Company, Inc. v. Piedmont Iron & Metal Company and Philip Goldberg) 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

Dixie-Land Iron & Metal Company, Inc. v. Piedmont Iron & Metal Company and Philip Goldberg, 583 F.2d 717 (5th Cir. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

After receipt of the record for purpose of the appeal the appellant’s counsel learned for the first time that while the jury was deliberating, the Trial Judge responded directly to an inquiry 1 from the jury without notifying counsel either as to the fact of inquiry or the answer given.

Considering the Court’s charge to the jury there was at least the possibility that the jury in determining the actions of the various defendant participants could legitimately have found varying amounts as to the several defendants. Consequently we have no basis for concluding that this action of the Trial Judge was not harmful. Absent that the venerable case of Fillipon v. Albion Vein Slate Co., 1919, 250 U.S. 76, 39 S.Ct. 435, 63 L.Ed. 853, compels reversal. See also Rogers v. United States, 1974, 422 U.S. 35, 95 S.Ct. 2091, 45 L.Ed.2d 1; Pe trycki v. Youngstown & Northern R. R. Co., 6 Cir., 1976, 531 F.2d 1363, cert. denied, 1976, 429 U.S. 860, 97 S.Ct. 161, 50 L.Ed.2d 138. As it is not likely that the other asserted errors will recur on retrial, we need not discuss them.

Reversed.

1

. “If we find for the plaintiff, do we lump the verdict? Do we pro-rate it? If so, how?”

“No pro-ration.” [signed with the Judge’s initials]

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

PER CURIAM:

After receipt of the record for purpose of the appeal the appellant’s counsel learned for the first time that while the jury was deliberating, the Trial Judge responded directly to an inquiry 1 from the jury without notifying counsel either as to the fact of inquiry or the answer given.

Considering the Court’s charge to the jury there was at least the possibility that the jury in determining the actions of the various defendant participants could legitimately have found varying amounts as to the several defendants. Consequently we have no basis for concluding that this action of the Trial Judge was not harmful. Absent that the venerable case of Fillipon v. Albion Vein Slate Co., 1919, 250 U.S. 76, 39 S.Ct. 435, 63 L.Ed. 853, compels reversal. See also Rogers v. United States, 1974, 422 U.S. 35, 95 S.Ct. 2091, 45 L.Ed.2d 1; Pe trycki v. Youngstown & Northern R. R. Co., 6 Cir., 1976, 531 F.2d 1363, cert. denied, 1976, 429 U.S. 860, 97 S.Ct. 161, 50 L.Ed.2d 138. As it is not likely that the other asserted errors will recur on retrial, we need not discuss them.

Reversed.

1

. “If we find for the plaintiff, do we lump the verdict? Do we pro-rate it? If so, how?”

“No pro-ration.” [signed with the Judge’s initials]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

583 F.2d 717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixie-land-iron-metal-company-inc-v-piedmont-iron-metal-company-and-ca5-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack