Luther W. White, Iii, Administrator C.T.A. Of the Estate of Donald E. Meeks v. United States

Fourth Circuit

Luther W. White, Iii, Administrator C.T.A. Of the Estate of Donald E. Meeks v. United States

359 F.2d 989, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6506

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 13, 1966

Docket10310

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 359 F.2d 989 (Luther W. White, Iii, Administrator C.T.A. Of the Estate of Donald E. Meeks v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Luther W. White, Iii, Administrator C.T.A. Of the Estate of Donald E. Meeks v. United States, 359 F.2d 989, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6506 (4th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This case was here once before after the entry of summary judgment for the defendant. White v. United States, 4 Cir., 317 F.2d 13. We vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case for trial on the issue of negligence. Thereafter, a full plenary hearing was had and evidence, including the testimony of expert witnesses, was introduced by both parties. Thereafter, the District Court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and, upon their basis, it again entered judgment for the defendant.

We accept the District Court’s findings of fact as not being clearly erroneous, and, on the basis those findings provide, its ultimate conclusion that there was no negligence in the care and treatment of Meeks.

While the issue would be highly debatable if before us de novo, we find no reversible error in the record.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This case was here once before after the entry of summary judgment for the defendant. White v. United States, 4 Cir., 317 F.2d 13. We vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case for trial on the issue of negligence. Thereafter, a full plenary hearing was had and evidence, including the testimony of expert witnesses, was introduced by both parties. Thereafter, the District Court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and, upon their basis, it again entered judgment for the defendant.

We accept the District Court’s findings of fact as not being clearly erroneous, and, on the basis those findings provide, its ultimate conclusion that there was no negligence in the care and treatment of Meeks.

While the issue would be highly debatable if before us de novo, we find no reversible error in the record.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

359 F.2d 989, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luther-w-white-iii-administrator-cta-of-the-estate-of-donald-e-meeks-ca4-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack