Home/Fifth Circuit/Hyde Construction Company, Inc., Cross v. Koehring Company, Cross Vardaman S. Dunn v. Koehring Company

Hyde Construction Company, Inc., Cross v. Koehring Company, Cross Vardaman S. Dunn v. Koehring Company

551 F.2d 73, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13692
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 25, 1977
Docket75-1261 and 75-1327
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 551 F.2d 73 (Hyde Construction Company, Inc., Cross v. Koehring Company, Cross Vardaman S. Dunn v. Koehring Company) 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
Hyde Construction Company, Inc., Cross v. Koehring Company, Cross Vardaman S. Dunn v. Koehring Company, 551 F.2d 73, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13692 (5th Cir. 1977).

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before GODBOLD and HILL, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, * District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Only one issue in Koehring’s petition needs to be addressed. Koehring asserts that the panel opinion made a factual finding that an assignment existed from Hyde to Dunn, 546 F.2d 1193 at 1202, though no copy of such an assignment was ever found and its existence was never proved. A part of the opinion can be so construed and should be clarified.

What happened was this. In a letter to Koehring’s Oklahoma attorney, Koehring’s house counsel said that he was enclosing a copy of an assignment from Hyde to Dunn which made Dunn the primary party in interest in any recovery made on the judgment against Koehring and made Dunn dependent on the judgment for payment of his attorney’s fees. With this letter was a memorandum suggesting that Dunn could only be punished by citing for contempt Hyde and “its assignees as well.” The fact that the alleged assignment was never found or introduced is immaterial to Koehring’s intent to harm Dunn. What is important is that Koehring believed the assignment existed and its actions taken against Hyde to harm Dunn were based on this belief.

Thus, Koehring’s petition for rehearing is GRANTED in part. In all other respects the said petition for rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

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

Related

Morris v. Walden
856 So. 2d 705 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2003)
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Winters
815 So. 2d 1168 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2002)
McCorkle v. McCorkle
811 So. 2d 258 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2001)
Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Bertha Lee Winters
Mississippi Supreme Court, 1999
ACI Chemicals, Inc. v. Metaplex, Inc.
615 So. 2d 1192 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1993)
Canal Insurance Company v. First General Insurance Company
901 F.2d 45 (First Circuit, 1990)
Hinds Cty. Bd. of Sup'rs v. Common Cause
551 So. 2d 107 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1989)
McQueen Contracting, Inc., Cross-Appellant v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, Cross-Appellee
863 F.2d 1216 (Fifth Circuit, 1989)
Schwegmann Giant Super Markets v. Golden Eagle Insurance
693 F. Supp. 478 (E.D. Louisiana, 1988)
Royal Oil Co., Inc. v. Wells
500 So. 2d 439 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1986)
Robinson v. Hinkley (In Re Hinkley)
58 B.R. 339 (S.D. Texas, 1986)
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Doleac Elec. Co.
471 So. 2d 325 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1985)
William (Bob) Brown v. Wiley C. Edwards and All Other Constables in the State of Mississippi
721 F.2d 1442 (Fifth Circuit, 1984)
Jonez P. Suthoff v. Yazoo County Industrial Development Corporation
722 F.2d 133 (Fifth Circuit, 1983)
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,777, 11 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 781 Chemetron Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. Business Funds, Inc., Cross-Appellees
682 F.2d 1149 (Fifth Circuit, 1982)
Piney Woods Country Life School v. Shell Oil Co.
539 F. Supp. 957 (S.D. Mississippi, 1982)
Dunagin v. City of Oxford, Miss.
489 F. Supp. 763 (N.D. Mississippi, 1980)
Rickey Combee, Cross-Appellant v. Shell Oil Company, Defendant-Third Party Travelers Insurance Company v. Kendall Construction Co., Third Party Cross-Appellees
615 F.2d 698 (Third Circuit, 1980)
Combee v. Shell Oil Co.
615 F.2d 698 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)
John A. Cochrane v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., Edward W. Rothe and Lee Freeman, Sr., Lex Hawkins v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., Edward W. Rothe and Lee Freeman, Sr.
596 F.2d 254 (Eighth Circuit, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
551 F.2d 73, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyde-construction-company-inc-cross-v-koehring-company-cross-vardaman-ca5-1977.