Robert E. Hooper v. Chrysler Motors Corporation

Fifth Circuit

Robert E. Hooper v. Chrysler Motors Corporation

325 F.2d 321

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 9, 1964

Docket20315

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 325 F.2d 321 (Robert E. Hooper v. Chrysler Motors Corporation) 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

Robert E. Hooper v. Chrysler Motors Corporation, 325 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s case was dismissed with prejudice by the District Court when he declined to go to trial after denial of his motion for continuance. No abuse of discretion appears either with respect to the denial of the motion for continuance, or the dismissal. Rule 41(b), F.R. Civ.P.; Joseph v. Norton Co., 2 Cir., 1959, 273 F.2d 65; and Girard Trust Co. v. Amsterdam, 5 Cir., 1942, 128 F.2d 376.

It follows that the judgment appealed from must be, and is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s case was dismissed with prejudice by the District Court when he declined to go to trial after denial of his motion for continuance. No abuse of discretion appears either with respect to the denial of the motion for continuance, or the dismissal. Rule 41(b), F.R. Civ.P.; Joseph v. Norton Co., 2 Cir., 1959, 273 F.2d 65; and Girard Trust Co. v. Amsterdam, 5 Cir., 1942, 128 F.2d 376.

It follows that the judgment appealed from must be, and is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

325 F.2d 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-e-hooper-v-chrysler-motors-corporation-ca5-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack