Mrs. Aretha Dillon, Wife Of/and Tommie Warner v. Dorman A. Crowe

Fifth Circuit

Mrs. Aretha Dillon, Wife Of/and Tommie Warner v. Dorman A. Crowe

406 F.2d 1321

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 10, 1969

Docket26879_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 406 F.2d 1321 (Mrs. Aretha Dillon, Wife Of/and Tommie Warner v. Dorman A. Crowe) 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

Mrs. Aretha Dillon, Wife Of/and Tommie Warner v. Dorman A. Crowe, 406 F.2d 1321 (5th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of the Court, this case has been placed on the summary calendar for disposition without oral argument. 1

This appeal is from an order dismissing a complaint against defendant law enforcement officers for the wrongful death of plaintiffs’ son. The complaint was couched in terms of illegal conduct and negligence. The District Court, sitting without a jury, dismissed the case for failure of proof. Findings of fact and conclusions of law Were entered. They are amply supported by the record and the applicable law and must therefore stand under Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.Procedure.

The record discloses the following facts. Decedent was in a Louisiana cafe where a dice game was in progress. He was not participating in the game but sitting nearby. The officers raided the game and the participants were told that they were under arrest. A scuffle ensued between one of the officers and one of the gamblers. During the scuffle the officer attempted to draw his pistol to enforce the arrest. Just as the gun was removed from the holster it was discharged as a result of the officer’s arm being struck by the gambler. The bullet accidentally hit the decedent.

The subsidiary findings of fact support the conclusion that only such force was being used by the officer as was necessary in the circumstances, and that the officer was not negligent in that the intervening blow against his arm caused the gun to go off. There the matter ends.

Affirmed.

1

. In order to establish a docket control procedure, the Fifth Circuit adopted new Rules 17-20 on December 6, 1968. See Wittner v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 406 F.2d 1165 [1969], Fn 1 and Appendix thereto.

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

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of the Court, this case has been placed on the summary calendar for disposition without oral argument. 1

This appeal is from an order dismissing a complaint against defendant law enforcement officers for the wrongful death of plaintiffs’ son. The complaint was couched in terms of illegal conduct and negligence. The District Court, sitting without a jury, dismissed the case for failure of proof. Findings of fact and conclusions of law Were entered. They are amply supported by the record and the applicable law and must therefore stand under Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.Procedure.

The record discloses the following facts. Decedent was in a Louisiana cafe where a dice game was in progress. He was not participating in the game but sitting nearby. The officers raided the game and the participants were told that they were under arrest. A scuffle ensued between one of the officers and one of the gamblers. During the scuffle the officer attempted to draw his pistol to enforce the arrest. Just as the gun was removed from the holster it was discharged as a result of the officer’s arm being struck by the gambler. The bullet accidentally hit the decedent.

The subsidiary findings of fact support the conclusion that only such force was being used by the officer as was necessary in the circumstances, and that the officer was not negligent in that the intervening blow against his arm caused the gun to go off. There the matter ends.

Affirmed.

1

. In order to establish a docket control procedure, the Fifth Circuit adopted new Rules 17-20 on December 6, 1968. See Wittner v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 406 F.2d 1165 [1969], Fn 1 and Appendix thereto.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

406 F.2d 1321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mrs-aretha-dillon-wife-ofand-tommie-warner-v-dorman-a-crowe-ca5-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack