E. H. Thornton, Jr. v. Bean Contracting Company, Inc.
E. H. THORNTON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. BEAN CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC., A/K/A Bean Contracting Corp., Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
On petition for rehearing, petitioners have urged the Court to receive and consider newly discovered evidence which they describe as:
“copies of Amended Complaint of Dragados, S.A. against Cal-Surance, Third-Party Complaint of Cal-Surance against Seller, and Counterclaim of Seller against Dragados S.A., in C.A. No. 77-4081, styled Dragados, S.A. vs. Cal-Surance Overseas Agency, Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.”
This evidence was not in existence when the case was tried and was not discovered by plaintiff-appellee or his attorney until April 20, 1979. Movant’s request that this new evidence be received, filed and considered in connection with his petition for Panel Rehearing is granted.
This statement on page 1289 of this Court’s opinion of April 11, 1979, 592 F.2d 1287 , is to the effect that Dragados “released its claim to the insurance proceeds” is withdrawn in light of the litigation in California. Otherwise, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby DENIED.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“The generally accepted rule is that the interpretation of a contract is a question of law, not fact . . . .”)
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.