TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 66, Afl-Cio v. Leona Lee Insulation and Specialties, Inc.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS, LOCAL 66, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEONA LEE INSULATION AND SPECIALTIES, INC., Et Al., Defendants-Appellants

Int'l Ass'n of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers, Local 66, Afl-Cio v. Leona Lee Insulation & Specialties, Inc., 516 F.2d 504 (5th Cir. 1975)
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
July 25, 1975
Docket
No. 74-2748
Judges
Brown, Wisdom, Coleman
Citations
516 F.2d 50420 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 11161975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13478

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the District Court’s Order dismissing with prejudice because of the failure of appellant’s (Leona Lee Corporation) counsel to appear at the time the case was scheduled for trial. We see nothing to be served by setting out the lengthy history and facts. It suffices that this is a case in which a *505 too busy lawyer and a too busy Judge were trying to communicate through legitimate intermediaries with a resulting series of misunderstandings that in retrospect ought not to have occurred but which lack any suggestion of contumacious indifference to the Court of the kind we generally regard as requisite to the use of this severe sanction. See, e. g., Brown v. Thompson, 5 Cir., 1970, 430 F.2d 1214 and Durham v. Florida East Coast Railway Company, 5 Cir., 1967, 385 F.2d 366 . Cf. Brown v. O’Leary, 5 Cir., 1975, 512 F.2d 485 .

The interests of justice call for a reversal and remand with directions to reinstate the case for expedited disposition, but in doing so the District Court shall assess costs against Leona Lee Corporation, for whatever costs and expenses were incurred by appellee in having its witnesses and counsel present at the scheduled time of trial.

Reversed and remanded.

How later courts describe this case

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

1976: 11978: 11981: 21991: 12009: 119762026peak 1981 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bagalay v. Lahaina Restoration Foundation588 P.2d 416 (Haw. 1978)
  2. Willie E. BOAZMAN v. ECONOMICS LABORATORY, INC.537 F.2d 210 (5th Cir. 1976)
  3. Prince v. Stewart580 F.3d 571 (7th Cir. 2009)
  4. Knox v. Lichtenstein654 F.2d 19 (8th Cir. 1981)
  5. Knox v. Lichtenstein654 F.2d 19 (8th Cir. 1981)
  6. Dimuccio v. D'Ambra779 F. Supp. 1318 (M.D. Fla. 1991)

Most recent

  1. Prince v. Stewart580 F.3d 571 (7th Cir. 2009)
  2. Dimuccio v. D'Ambra779 F. Supp. 1318 (M.D. Fla. 1991)
  3. Knox v. Lichtenstein654 F.2d 19 (8th Cir. 1981)
  4. Knox v. Lichtenstein654 F.2d 19 (8th Cir. 1981)
  5. Bagalay v. Lahaina Restoration Foundation588 P.2d 416 (Haw. 1978)
  6. Willie E. BOAZMAN v. ECONOMICS LABORATORY, INC.537 F.2d 210 (5th Cir. 1976)

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
Durham v. Fla. East Coast Ry. Co., 385 F.2d 366 (5th Cir. 1967) 216
Ollie Mae Brown & Margaret Brown v. Thompson, 430 F.2d 1214 (5th Cir. 1970) 88
Brown v. O'leary, 512 F.2d 485 (1st Cir. 1975) 8

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