Boulden v. Herring
District Court, W.D. Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
JOHN E. MILLER, District Judge.
The questions before the court for determination are mixed questions of law and fact, and it seems desirable to dispose of them in an opinion rather than by separate findings of fact and conclusions of law. There is no substantial factual dispute between the parties, but the contentions of the parties to this proceeding arise from conflicting inferences drawn from the undisputed facts.
On April 9, 1953, the plaintiff appeared by her attorneys, Lookadoo & Lookadoo, the defendants, M. Herring and M. Herring Wholesale Lumber Company, a corporation, appeared by their…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Matter of Curtin v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1942
- Winfrey & Carlile v. NicklesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1954
- Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. ButlerMontana Supreme Court · 1944
- Hope Flooring & Lumber Company v. BouldenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1954
3Cited by5 opinions
- Carter v. WooleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1974
- Saint Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co. v. LanzaDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1955
- Continental Casualty Co. v. SharpSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1993
- Hope Flooring & Lumber Co. v. BouldenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1955
- Hope Flooring & Lumber Company v. BouldenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1955