Smith v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

500 F.2d 1131, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6809
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Smith v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance. Read the opinion of the Court — 471 F.2d 840
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided September 19, 1974·No. No. 74-1843·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is the second appearance of this legal malpractice case in this court. On the former appeal, 471 F.2d 840 (5th Cir. 1972), we reversed and remanded an order of the district court, 344 F.Supp. 555, granting summary judgment in favor of the appellee because we felt that the facts with respect to negligence and proximate cause had not been sufficiently developed to support summary judgment. Upon remand the district court held a full evidentiary hearing and made detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. After careful consideration of the briefs, trial record and the opinion and findings of the district court, 366 F.Supp. 1283 (M.D.La.1973), we are unable to conclude that the district court committed error.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Smith v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance, 500 F.2d 1131, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6809 (5th Cir. 1974).

500 F.2d 1131 (Smith v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company
366 F. Supp. 1283 (M.D. Louisiana, 1973)
Smith v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company
344 F. Supp. 555 (M.D. Louisiana, 1972)
Smith v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
471 F.2d 840 (Fifth Circuit, 1972)