Legal Opinion
Frederick Leyland & Co. v. Holmes
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided March 5, 1907No. 1,590PublishedCited by 6 opinions
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
1Per curiam
The learned judge who sat in the court below placed on record a memorandum of his reasons for refusing a new trial, which we here quote in full:
“PARLANCE, District Judge. I shall state briefly my reasons for refusing a new trial.
“The first specification of the motion for a new trial is an assertion that the court shifted the burden of proof frorn the libelant to the claimant and thereby committed error. That specification is entirely without foundation. When stating orally my reasons for decreeing in favor of libelant, I said that he had, in my opinion, fully met the burden of proving…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Inland & Seaboard Coasting Co. v. TolsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Watts v. JensenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1898
- Jensen v. The Joseph B. ThomasDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1897
- Warn v. Davis Oil Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1894
3Cited by6 opinions
- Samad v. the Steamship EtivebankDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1955
- Grays Harbor Stevedore Co. v. FountainCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925
- The ChicagoDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1907
- Conley v. Consolidation Coastwise Co.District Court, D. Maine · 1917
- Petersen v. KlitgaardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.