TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Redditt v. Hale

REDDITT Et Al. v. HALE Et Al.

Redditt v. Hale, 188 F.2d 832 (8th Cir. 1951)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 15, 1951
Docket
No. 14295
Judges
Sanborn, Woodrough, Riddick
Citations
188 F.2d 8321951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3111

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The only order which is involved in this appeal is the order made by the District Court directing the entry of judgment pursuant to the mandate of this Court in the same controversy. See Redditt v. Hale, 8 Cir., 184 F.2d 443, 447 .

Concededly, the order of the District Court directed the entry of the judgment required by the mandate. That court could not have done otherwise. See and compare, Thornton v. Carter, 8 Cir., 109 F.2d 316 .

The question whether the proceedings in the Probate Court of Crittenden County, Arkansas, referred to in our former opinion, have been terminated, as the appellants claim, is not before us on this appeal.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1952: 119522026peak 1952 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Redditt v. Hale Redditt v. Fogleman199 F.2d 386 (8th Cir. 1952)

Most recent

  1. Redditt v. Hale Redditt v. Fogleman199 F.2d 386 (8th Cir. 1952)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Thornton v. Carter, 109 F.2d 316 (8th Cir. 1940) 86
Redditt v. Hale, 184 F.2d 443 (8th Cir. 1950) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list