Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc., Cross v. Francine Co., Inc., Cross
ALOE CREME LABORATORIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee Cross Appellant, v. FRANCINE CO., Inc., Defendant-Appellant Cross Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 804 , Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 526 , Part I.
This appeal presents substantially the same issues as those recently decided in Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. Milsan, Inc., 5 Cir., 1970, 423 F.2d 845 .
In the court below Francine Company, Inc. moved for a summary judgment on the ground “that the issues created by this cause have heretofore been decided adversely to the plaintiff by reason of the judgment entered [in Aloe v. Mil san.] ”. The District Court “after having interrogated counsel” concluded that “no further material facts are in actual good faith controverted”. Summary judgment was accordingly entered.
Francine states in its brief that as to Aloe it relies upon and adopts the brief filed by Milsan in No. 27,791, supra. Francine now contends only that it should be allowed to use the Aloe plant design on its products.
Aloe says that Francine should not be allowed to appeal on the record compiled in another case, that is, in No. 27,-791, supra.
The District Court clearly had the right to take notice of its own files and records and it had no duty to grind the same corn a second time. Once was sufficient.
We are, therefore, bound by the decision rendered in Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. Milsan, Inc., supra, and we affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 44 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(explaining that a federal court may take judicial notice of the contents of its own records, as well as those records of other courts)
-
(noting with respect to each of Petitioner’s charges, with the exception of possession of a controlled substance in Schedule I to V. (See Indictment Nos. 2024-GS-26-03294; 2025-GS-26-01745; 2025- GS-26-03768; 2025-GS-26-03766; 2025-GS-26-03770; and 2025-GS-26-03769.)
-
(“The District Court clearly had the right to take notice of its own files and records and it had no duty to grind the same corn a second time. Once was sufficient.”)
Cited by 95 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Robert Southard v. Director, Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center
- Jamel Williams v. Warden Brian Kendall; Officer Bryant; Officer Bowman; Sgt. Palmer; Connie Buehner; and Officer F. Buchman
- Joni S. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security Administration
- Michael Wixted Faile v. Director Rhodes
- State of South Carolina v. Burnett Trione Shackleford
- Darren Clark Green v. Sheriff Ritchee
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.