TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Frank C. Bailey Enterprises, Inc. v. Cargill, Incorporated, a Corporation

FRANK C. BAILEY ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARGILL, INCORPORATED, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee

Frank C. Bailey Enters. v. Cargill, Inc., a Corp., 582 F.2d 333 (5th Cir. 1978)
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 3, 1978
Docket
No. 78-1423
Judges
Ainsworth, Goldberg, Hill, Per Curiam
Citations
582 F.2d 3331978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8660

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the district court correctly granted the defendant-appellee’s motion for summary judgment.

We have reviewed the record and find that the appellee carried its burden of showing that there was no genuine issue as to any-material fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

See Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). Once the movant has carried this burden, the non-moving party “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed.R.

*334 Civ.P. 56(e). If the non-moving party does not do so, summary judgment for the movant is proper.

Oglesby v. Terminal Transport Co., 543 F.2d 1111, 1112 (5th Cir. 1976);

Sweet v. Childs, 507 F.2d 675, 679 (5th Cir. 1975). In this case, the appellant’s allegations and denials failed to establish that there was a genuine issue for trial. The district court, therefore, properly granted summary judgment for the appellee.

On appeal, counsel for appellant sets forth additional allegations in an attempt to show that there was in fact a genuine issue for trial. However, an appellate court, in reviewing a summary judgment order, can only consider those matters presented to the district court.

Munoz v. International Alliance, 563 F.2d 205 (5th Cir. 1977);

Garcia v. American Marine Corp., 432 F.2d 6 , 8 (5th Cir. 1970). Accordingly, we disregard the appellant’s additional allegations and affirm the judgment below.

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 49 cases

View all citing references →
1980: 11981: 31982: 31983: 71984: 21985: 21986: 51987: 11988: 31989: 11991: 11992: 21995: 31997: 22002: 12004: 12005: 12007: 12008: 22011: 12014: 22018: 12019: 12020: 12021: 119802026peak 1983 · 7

Most recent

  1. Alli Good Govt v. Coaltn Better Govt998 F.3d 661 (5th Cir. 2021)
  2. Alaniz v. U.S. Renal CareNo. 19-40043 (5th Cir. Dec. 23, 2020)
  3. Carlisle 2010 Hist Tax Crdt v. Regions BankNo. 18-60726 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2019)
  4. Alliance for Good Government v. Coalition for Bett901 F.3d 498 (5th Cir. 2018)
  5. Angela Ames v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co760 F.3d 763 (8th Cir. 2014)
  6. Angela Ames v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co747 F.3d 509 (8th Cir. 2014)

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
Oglesby v. Terminal Transp. Co., 543 F.2d 1111 (5th Cir. 1976) 32
Sweet v. Childs, 507 F.2d 675 (5th Cir. 1975) 22

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