Aetna Insurance Company v. Wallis Hartshorn, D/B/A Hartshorn Enterprises, Claims, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
SIMPSON, Circuit Judge:
Because a busy district judge considered and disposed of the merits of cases which were properly before him for the single function of ruling on a Motion to Consolidate several pending actions without first affording appellant Claims, Inc. (Claims) prior notice that such disposition might take place we are constrained to reverse and remand. The due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment of notice and opportunity to be heard were simply ignored in the rush to take final action.
On November 1, 1969, defendant-appellee Hartshorn, d/b/a Hartshorn Enterprises, a Texas…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Honeywell, Inc. v. Metz ApparatewerkeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1975
- United States v. WhiteDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi · 1977
- United States v. FordDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi · 1982
- Glenda Miera, and Cross-Appellants v. First Security Bank of Utah, N.A., a Utah Banking Corporation, and Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985
- Iannacone v. IannaconeSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1978
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.