Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

McDonnell v. American Leduc Petroleums, Ltd.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided January 19, 1972No. Nos. 779-784, Dockets 35222, 35283, 35294, 35518, 35528 and 35532Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

HAYS, Circuit Judge (concurring and dissenting):

I agree with the majority’s disposition of the cases of Szabo, Berdon & Co., Sey-mat Associates, and Maber, Inc. However I would affirm as to Berdon, Lehrich, Slavin, Stewart, and Callahan and reverse as to Schinasi, Blau, and Cohen.

Remanding certain of these cases on the ground that the district judge did not state what standard of evidence he applied seems to me to be wholly unjustified. When the record on appeal does not disclose what rule of law the district judge applied, it is presumed that the district judge correctly applied the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. The Barr Rubber Products Company, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. The Sun Rubber Company, Defendant-Appellant-Cross and Wonder Products CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1970
  2. Revlon, Inc. v. Mrs. R. H. BuchananCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1959
  3. Ferriel M. Barnett v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1956
  4. Goodall Co. v. SartinCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1944
  5. State Fuel Co. v. Gulf Oil CorporationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1950

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API