TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Standard National Insurance Company and Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. v. Mrs. Rosie M. Bayless Et Vir

STANDARD NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY and Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., Appellants, v. Mrs. Rosie M. BAYLESS Et Vir, Appellee

Standard Nat'l Ins. Co. & Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters v. Rosie M. Bayless Et Vir, 272 F.2d 185 (5th Cir. 1959)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 25, 1959
Docket
No. 17859
Judges
Hutcheson, Jones, Per Curiam, Wisdom
Citations
272 F.2d 1852 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 6891959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3013

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Rosie M. Bayless and her husband S. R. Bayless filed suit in February, 1958, against the Standard National Insurance Company and Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., on two policies of fire insurance of $7,000 each. The suit was filed in the State District Court of Montgomery County, Texas. In March, 1958 the cause was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. February 10, 1959, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the case without prejudice. On that same day the insurance companies filed notice of their intention to take depositions. February 20, 1959, the Court granted the motion to dismiss attaching the condition that the plaintiffs pay costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses. Mr. and Mrs. Bayless then filed two new suits in the State Court, one against each company. This appeal is from the judgment dismissing the suit without prejudice. Appellants contend that the district judge abused his discretion in granting the motion to dismiss over defendants timely objections, after the cause had been pending over one year and the purpose of the dismissal was to attain a supposed tactical advantage.

Under Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 41(a) (2), 28 U.S.C.A., the district judge acted *186 well within his discretion in permitting this dismissal of the suit without prejudice. Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 1947, 330 U.S. 212 , 67 S.Ct. 752 , 91 L.Ed. 849 ; Southern Railway Company v. Chapman, 4 Cir., 1957, 235 F.2d 43 ; New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company v. Vardaman, 8 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 769 .

The judgment is Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1968: 11986: 11994: 119682026peak 1968 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Reta L. McCants as Administratrix of the Estate of Johnny L. McCants Deceased v. Ford Motor Company, Inc.781 F.2d 855 (11th Cir. 1986)
  2. In re Vale180 B.R. 1017 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1994)
  3. Nixon Construction Co. v. Frick Co.45 F.R.D. 387 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)

Most recent

  1. In re Vale180 B.R. 1017 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1994)
  2. Reta L. McCants as Administratrix of the Estate of Johnny L. McCants Deceased v. Ford Motor Company, Inc.781 F.2d 855 (11th Cir. 1986)
  3. Nixon Construction Co. v. Frick Co.45 F.R.D. 387 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Cone v. W. Va. Pulp & Paper Co., 330 U.S. 212 (1947) 399
New York v. Vardaman, 181 F.2d 769 (8th Cir. 1950) 46
Southern Ry. Co. v. Chapman, 235 F.2d 43 (4th Cir. 1956) 10

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