Hal Hall and Snow Blackburn Hall v. Paul J. Bleisch

Fifth Circuit

Hal Hall and Snow Blackburn Hall v. Paul J. Bleisch

400 F.2d 896, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5415

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 30, 1968

Docket25647

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 400 F.2d 896 (Hal Hall and Snow Blackburn Hall v. Paul J. Bleisch) 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

Hal Hall and Snow Blackburn Hall v. Paul J. Bleisch, 400 F.2d 896, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5415 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The parties to this appeal were involved in a three car accident. The owner of the third car sued them in state court to recover property damages. They crossclaimed, one as against the other, for indemnity as to the third party’s property damage. The case was settled by a consent judgment in the state court. Appellees then brought suit in the federal court against the Halls, seeking damages for personal injuries.

The district court did not err in rejecting the defense based on res judicata. The issue presented in the federal suit was not in issue in the state court litigation which appellant asserts as having given rise to the bar, nor is it such an issue as would require the *897 application of res judicata under Texas law. The ease of Ogletree v. Crates, 363 S.W.2d 431 (Tex.S.Ct.1963), relied on by the appellants, extends only to requiring the assertion of all defenses that a defendant might have against a plaintiff. We do not read it to require the assertion of possible cross-claims by co-defendants.

There is likewise no merit in the contention that the suit is barred by the failure of appellees to comply with the Texas compulsory counterclaim rule in the state court litigation. The claims asserted were crosselaims and not counterclaims. Rule 97, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 13, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and Wright, Federal Courts, p. 306 (1963).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The parties to this appeal were involved in a three car accident. The owner of the third car sued them in state court to recover property damages. They crossclaimed, one as against the other, for indemnity as to the third party’s property damage. The case was settled by a consent judgment in the state court. Appellees then brought suit in the federal court against the Halls, seeking damages for personal injuries.

The district court did not err in rejecting the defense based on res judicata. The issue presented in the federal suit was not in issue in the state court litigation which appellant asserts as having given rise to the bar, nor is it such an issue as would require the *897 application of res judicata under Texas law. The ease of Ogletree v. Crates, 363 S.W.2d 431 (Tex.S.Ct.1963), relied on by the appellants, extends only to requiring the assertion of all defenses that a defendant might have against a plaintiff. We do not read it to require the assertion of possible cross-claims by co-defendants.

There is likewise no merit in the contention that the suit is barred by the failure of appellees to comply with the Texas compulsory counterclaim rule in the state court litigation. The claims asserted were crosselaims and not counterclaims. Rule 97, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 13, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and Wright, Federal Courts, p. 306 (1963).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

400 F.2d 896, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hal-hall-and-snow-blackburn-hall-v-paul-j-bleisch-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack