Mary Katherine Hughes Et Vir. v. Mobil Oil Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
GODBOLD, Circuit Judge:
This is the second appearance of this case in this court. In the first appearance1 we concluded that the issue of the scope of employment of appellant’s employee Jurenka was a matter for the jury. We are presented with neither change in circumstances nor change in the governing law which might make it appropriate for us to conclude that the law of the case should not apply and that we now should reach the opposite conclusion. E. g., Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v. Roosth, 306 F.2d 110 (5th Cir. 1962).
The intervening case of Thomas v. Travelers Insurance…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Le Master v. Fort Worth Transit Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1942
- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v. Rosa Lee Leaman RoosthCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962
- El Paso Electric Co. v. WhitenackTexas Commission of Appeals · 1928
- Hoey v. SoltCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1951
- Bertha Rosiello and Carl Rosiello, Her Husband v. C. Arthur Sellman and C. A. Siemann, Individually and D/B/A Green Thumb Garden CenterCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1965
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mary Katherine Hughes Et Vir. v. Mobil Oil CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970