TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Charles D. McDonald v. Charles M

Charles D. McDONALD, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Charles M. BENNETT and James v. Belvedere, Defendants-Appellants; Charles M. BENNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles D. McDONALD, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

McDonald v. Charles M, 679 F.2d 415 (5th Cir. 1982)
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
June 28, 1982
Docket
No. 80-1124
Judges
Clark, Goldberg, Per Curiam, Williams
Citations
679 F.2d 4151982 U.S. App. LEXIS 17919

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

In McDonald v. Bennett, 674 F.2d 1080 (5th Cir. 1982), this Court remanded the case with instructions for the district court to offer plaintiff-appellee McDonald, as an alternative to a new trial, a remittitur of $303,900.00 in damages awarded against defendant-appellants Bennett and Belvedere, and of $100,000.00 in damages awarded against Bennett singly. Both sides have submitted petitions for rehearing, reiterating arguments that we already have found to be without merit. We deny these petitions for rehearing except as stated below.

Appellee McDonald’s petition, however, also contains McDonald’s assent to the remittitur, along with his request that we render judgment on this basis and without further proceedings on remand. This court is empowered to enter a remittitur. Our power in this respect is the same as that of a district court.

Shingleton v. Armor Velvet Corp., 621 F.2d 180, 182 (5th Cir. 1980). “[I]f a remand would be mere wasted motion this Court [may] recompute the award.”

Id.

(quoting Ferrero v. United States, 603 F.2d 510, 515 (5th Cir. 1979)).

As McDonald has agreed to the remittitur described in our prior opinion, further proceedings on remand would be a waste of time. Accordingly, we grant his petition for rehearing for the sole purpose of accepting his remittitur and rendering judgment in place of remand. Our judgment hereby awards McDonald $98,905.00 in actual damages against Bennett and Belvedere, jointly and severally, an additional $150,000.00 in punitive damages against Bennett, and another $150,000.00 in punitive damages against Belvedere.

JUDGMENT RENDERED.

How later courts describe this case

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

1984: 22000: 12002: 119842026peak 1984 · 2

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
Shingleton v. Armor Velvet Corp., 621 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1980) 29
Ferrero v. United States, 603 F.2d 510 (5th Cir. 1979) 46
McDonald v. Charles M, 674 F.2d 1080 (5th Cir. 1982) 21

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