James A. Paynes v. Dan Dee Lee and John Doe

Fifth Circuit

James A. Paynes v. Dan Dee Lee and John Doe

487 F.2d 1307, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10614

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 11, 1974

Docket73-3285

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 487 F.2d 1307 (James A. Paynes v. Dan Dee Lee and John Doe) 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

James A. Paynes v. Dan Dee Lee and John Doe, 487 F.2d 1307, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10614 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We previously found jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985(3) ’for a trial on the merits of this civil damage action involving rather gross acts committed against plaintiff to intimidate him from becoming a registered voter. Paynes v. *1308 Lee, 377 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1967), rev’g, 239 F.Supp. 1019 (E.D.La.1965).

That the acts were committed against the plaintiff is undisputed. That the defendant was present and committed the offenses was denied.

After thorough written consideration of the. evidence presented in a full trial, the District Court found an irreconcilable conflict in the evidence pertaining to the identification of the defendant as the man involved in the affair. Finding nothing that would justify attaching the “perjurer” label to either side, the Court applied the legal requirement that the plaintiff carries the burden of proving each essential element of his case by a preponderance of the evidence, and concluded that the “proofs in this case simply do not, as a matter of law, justify a finding of liability on the part of the defendant.”

A review of the record reveals no clear error in the judgment that the irreconcilable evidence left the court without a preponderance upon which to base findings favorable to either side. In this situation, the party with the burden of proof necessarily loses.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

We previously found jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985(3) ’for a trial on the merits of this civil damage action involving rather gross acts committed against plaintiff to intimidate him from becoming a registered voter. Paynes v. *1308 Lee, 377 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1967), rev’g, 239 F.Supp. 1019 (E.D.La.1965).

That the acts were committed against the plaintiff is undisputed. That the defendant was present and committed the offenses was denied.

After thorough written consideration of the. evidence presented in a full trial, the District Court found an irreconcilable conflict in the evidence pertaining to the identification of the defendant as the man involved in the affair. Finding nothing that would justify attaching the “perjurer” label to either side, the Court applied the legal requirement that the plaintiff carries the burden of proving each essential element of his case by a preponderance of the evidence, and concluded that the “proofs in this case simply do not, as a matter of law, justify a finding of liability on the part of the defendant.”

A review of the record reveals no clear error in the judgment that the irreconcilable evidence left the court without a preponderance upon which to base findings favorable to either side. In this situation, the party with the burden of proof necessarily loses.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

487 F.2d 1307, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-a-paynes-v-dan-dee-lee-and-john-doe-ca5-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack