Legal Opinion
Palmer v. Stokely
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Decided October 20, 1966No. Civ. No. 64-101PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
DAUGHERTY, District Judge.
Upon consideration of the defendants’ Amended Motion for New Trial, the Court finds that the same should be denied.
As to grounds Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in said Amended Motion for New Trial, the Court is satisfied that there is no merit in any of such grounds.
As to ground No. 4, the defendants, pursuant to Rule 59(a) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., are asking the Court to reopen the case, take additional testimony, and amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law heretofore entered, and to enter a new judgment in the case. As to this ground, the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Western Tie & Timber Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Railroad Company v. Soutter Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Lytle v. AndrewsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1929
- Arkansas Fuel Oil Co. v. LeiskCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1943
- Burt v. C. Gotzian & Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1900
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Campus Sweater & Sportswear Co. v. M. B. Kahn Construction Co.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1979
- Big Bear Super Market No. 3 v. Princess Baking Corp. (In Re Princess Baking Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. California · 1980
- Blanton v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. (In Re Blanton)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · 1989
- Allegaert v. PerotDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1978
- Bavely v. Cinoco Terminal, Inc. (In Re Triple a Coal Co.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 1984