Huddleston v. Herman & Maclean

Fifth Circuit

Huddleston v. Herman & Maclean

705 F.2d 775, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 27304

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 26, 1983

DocketNo. 79-3712

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 705 F.2d 775 (Huddleston v. Herman & Maclean) 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

Huddleston v. Herman & Maclean, 705 F.2d 775, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 27304 (5th Cir. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellees Huddleston and Bradley contend that a retrial of these cases is not necessary, that we should hold harmless the errors concerning admissibility of evidence identified in our prior opinion, 640 F.2d 534 (5th Cir.1981), and that our opinion is not reconcilable with the court’s en banc opinion in Shores v. Sklar, 647 F.2d 462 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 722, 74 L.Ed.2d 949 (1983). We have concluded that we can neither hold the evidentiary errors harmless nor hold retrial unnecessary. Our en banc opinion in Shores v. Sklar reversed the district court’s dismissal of the case based only on the pleadings. In this case no trier of fact has determined whether the facts warrant judgment for the plaintiffs under the principles set forth in Shores v. Sklar.

Accordingly, this case is remanded for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 683, 74 L.Ed.2d 548, and, except as to the extent reversed by that Court, in conformity with our prior opinion.

Costs in connection with briefing the question of the action to be taken by this court on remand from the Supreme Court are to be paid by Ralph E. Huddleston, et al.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellees Huddleston and Bradley contend that a retrial of these cases is not necessary, that we should hold harmless the errors concerning admissibility of evidence identified in our prior opinion, 640 F.2d 534 (5th Cir.1981), and that our opinion is not reconcilable with the court’s en banc opinion in Shores v. Sklar, 647 F.2d 462 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 722, 74 L.Ed.2d 949 (1983). We have concluded that we can neither hold the evidentiary errors harmless nor hold retrial unnecessary. Our en banc opinion in Shores v. Sklar reversed the district court’s dismissal of the case based only on the pleadings. In this case no trier of fact has determined whether the facts warrant judgment for the plaintiffs under the principles set forth in Shores v. Sklar.

Accordingly, this case is remanded for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 683, 74 L.Ed.2d 548, and, except as to the extent reversed by that Court, in conformity with our prior opinion.

Costs in connection with briefing the question of the action to be taken by this court on remand from the Supreme Court are to be paid by Ralph E. Huddleston, et al.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

705 F.2d 775, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 27304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huddleston-v-herman-maclean-ca5-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack