TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Xrt, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation v. Hyman Krellenstein, Chester Krellenstein

XRT, INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Hyman KRELLENSTEIN, Chester Krellenstein, A/K/A Chester Kay, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Xrt, Inc., a Del. Corp. v. Hyman Krellenstein, 448 F.2d 772 (5th Cir. 1971)
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
October 13, 1971
Docket
No. 71-1540
Judges
Bell, Ainsworth, Godbold
Citations
448 F.2d 772

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in a suit claiming fraud in the sale of a business. The judgment for the principal, Hyman Krellenstein, is affirmed. The judgment in favor of the certified public accountants, David Shapiro and his co-partners, doing business as David Shapiro & Company, was premature and must be reversed.

The prematurity is in the form of the failure of the district court to require production by Shapiro of the work papers which arose out of an audit claimed to be false and also claimed to have been negligently made. Plaintiffs contend that they were unable to controvert the affidavit of Shapiro in support of the motion for summary judgment without the work papers. Their position in this respect is supported by the affidavit of another certified public accountant and is, we think, well taken.

Our reversal as to Shapiro is in no wise to be considered as reflecting a view on the ultimate outcome of the case and likewise has no bearing on whether the Shapiro audit was material to the sale. The reversal goes only to the point that litigation is not to be short circuited by summary judgment *773 unless it appears that there is no genuine issue for trial. The burden was on plaintiffs to set forth facts showing such an issue (Rule 56(e), F.R.Civ.P.). They were entitled to the Shapiro work papers in an effort to do so.

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

How later courts describe this case

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

1972: 11986: 11987: 119722026peak 1972 · 1

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Isbell Enters. v. Citizens Cas. Co, 431 F.2d 409 (3d Cir. 1970) 3,975

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