Legal Opinion · Dissent
Capitol Chevrolet Co. v. Lawrence Warehouse Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided November 1, 1955No. 13840Published
1DissentChambers, Circuit Judge
I dissent. While I realize the intend-ments which should be given a trial judge who saw and heard the witnesses, yet I believe here a clearly erroneous result has been reached. Therefore, I would reverse.
Parenthetically, I think I should state, while I respect “law of the case,” we should keep in mind that as a result of Defense Supplies Corp. v. Lawrence Warehouse Co., 336 U.S. 631, 69 S.Ct. 762, 93 L.Ed. 931, our decision in Lawrence Warehouse Co., 164 F.2d 773, was destroyed entirely and completely. Therefore, we have no “law of the case” remaining from our first decision in 164 F.2d.…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Merrill v. Los Angeles Gas Elec. Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
- Booth-Kelly Lumber Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Southern Pacific Co. v. Booth-Kelly Lumber CoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950
- Brown v. George Pepperdine FoundationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Defense Supplies Corp. v. Lawrence Warehouse Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. CornumArizona Supreme Court · 1937
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.