Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Edward E. Landers v. Dr. Allen L. Ault, Etc., Robert H. Veal v. Dr. Allen L. Ault, Etc., Hugh Don Smith v. George Scheer, 77-3181 (1978)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 77-3181 Visitors: 21
Filed: Feb. 28, 1978
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 568 F.2d 1232 Edward E. LANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dr. Allen L. AULT, Etc., et al., Defendants-Appellants. Robert H. VEAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dr. Allen L. AULT, Etc., et al., Defendants-Appellant. Hugh Don SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George SCHEER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 77-3181. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Feb. 28, 1978. Edward E. Landers, pro se. Robert H. Veal, pro se. Hugh Don Smith, pro se. Before JONES, GODBOLD and GEE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 These co
More

568 F.2d 1232

Edward E. LANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Dr. Allen L. AULT, Etc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Robert H. VEAL, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Dr. Allen L. AULT, Etc., et al., Defendants-Appellant.
Hugh Don SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
George SCHEER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 77-3181.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 28, 1978.

Edward E. Landers, pro se.

Robert H. Veal, pro se.

Hugh Don Smith, pro se.

Before JONES, GODBOLD and GEE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

These consolidated cases are companion cases to Allen v. Ault, 564 F.2d 1198 (1977) and are controlled by it.

2

In each of these cases, as in Allen v. Ault, the motion for new trial was timely served but was not filed within the ten-day requirement of Rule 59(b).

3

In each case the order of dismissal is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for a determination whether the filing of the motion was timely within Rule 5(d), F.R.Civ.P.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer