Edgar D. Smith and Hugh E. Smith, Etc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, No. 74-1843. Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of N.Y., 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970), Part I

Fifth Circuit

Edgar D. Smith and Hugh E. Smith, Etc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, No. 74-1843. Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of N.Y., 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970), Part I

500 F.2d 1131

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 19, 1974

Docket1131

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 500 F.2d 1131 (Edgar D. Smith and Hugh E. Smith, Etc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, No. 74-1843. Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of N.Y., 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970), Part I) 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

Edgar D. Smith and Hugh E. Smith, Etc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, No. 74-1843. Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of N.Y., 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970), Part I, 500 F.2d 1131 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

500 F.2d 1131

Edgar D. SMITH and Hugh E. Smith, etc., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 74-1843. Summary Calendar.*
*Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc.
v.
Citizens Casualty Co. of N.Y., 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970), Part I.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 19, 1974.

Wendell G. Lindsay, Jr., Baton Rouge, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Donald S. Zuber, William C. Kaufman, III, Baton Rouge, La., for defendants-appellees.

Before GEWIN, GODBOLD and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is the second appearance of this legal malpractice case in this court. On the former appeal, 471 F.2d 840 (5th Cir. 1972), we reversed and remanded an order of the district court, 344 F.Supp. 555, granting summary judgment in favor of the appellee because we felt that the facts with respect to negligence and proximate cause had not been sufficiently developed to support summary judgment. Upon remand the district court held a full evidentiary hearing and made detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. After careful consideration of the briefs, trial record and the opinion and findings of the district court, 366 F.Supp. 1283 (M.D.La.1973), we are unable to conclude that the district court committed error.

Judgment affirmed.

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

500 F.2d 1131

Edgar D. SMITH and Hugh E. Smith, etc., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 74-1843. Summary Calendar.*
*Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc.
v.
Citizens Casualty Co. of N.Y., 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970), Part I.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 19, 1974.

Wendell G. Lindsay, Jr., Baton Rouge, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Donald S. Zuber, William C. Kaufman, III, Baton Rouge, La., for defendants-appellees.

Before GEWIN, GODBOLD and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is the second appearance of this legal malpractice case in this court. On the former appeal, 471 F.2d 840 (5th Cir. 1972), we reversed and remanded an order of the district court, 344 F.Supp. 555, granting summary judgment in favor of the appellee because we felt that the facts with respect to negligence and proximate cause had not been sufficiently developed to support summary judgment. Upon remand the district court held a full evidentiary hearing and made detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. After careful consideration of the briefs, trial record and the opinion and findings of the district court, 366 F.Supp. 1283 (M.D.La.1973), we are unable to conclude that the district court committed error.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

500 F.2d 1131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edgar-d-smith-and-hugh-e-smith-etc-v-st-paul-fire-and-marine-ca5-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack