Home/Fifth Circuit/Malcolm L. Pines v. Samuel Zemurray

Malcolm L. Pines v. Samuel Zemurray

384 F.2d 998, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4651
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedNovember 2, 1967
Docket23194_1
StatusPublished

This text of 384 F.2d 998 (Malcolm L. Pines v. Samuel Zemurray) 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
Malcolm L. Pines v. Samuel Zemurray, 384 F.2d 998, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4651 (5th Cir. 1967).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

After testimony in this cause had been taken before the district court on behalf of the plaintiff, who is the appellant here, a judgment was directed for the defendant. Federal jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship and the right of recovery was controlled by the law of Louisiana. The district court, having considered the facts disclosed by the evidence and the law of the State of Louisiana, concluded that the appellant had failed to carry the burden of proof *999 and failed to establish his case. It is the opinion of this Court that no other conclusion could properly have been made. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

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

Related

Charlie L. Henderson v. The Arundel Corporation, a Body Corporate, Charlie L. Henderson v. The Arundel Corporation, Peter Bershesky v. Elder Dempster, Charlie L. Henderson v. Elder Dempster, Peter Bershesky v. The Arundel Corporation, a Body Corporate, Peter Bershesky v. The Arundel Corporation
384 F.2d 998 (Fourth Circuit, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
384 F.2d 998, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malcolm-l-pines-v-samuel-zemurray-ca5-1967.