Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

The Tri-State Corporation, Inc. v. The State of Alabama on the Relation of Richmond M. Flowers, as Attorney General of the State of Alabama., 20620 (1964)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 20620 Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 03, 1964
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 339 F.2d 261 The TRI-STATE CORPORATION, Inc., Appellant, v. The STATE OF ALABAMA on the Relation of Richmond M. FLOWERS, as Attorney General of the State of Alabama. Appellee. No. 20620. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. December 3, 1964. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama; Frank M. Johnson, Jr., Judge. Harry H. Riddick, R. P. Denniston, Mobile, Ala., Hamilton, Denniston, Butler & Riddick, Mobile, Ala., of counsel, for appellant. Nicholas
More

339 F.2d 261

The TRI-STATE CORPORATION, Inc., Appellant,
v.
The STATE OF ALABAMA on the Relation of Richmond M. FLOWERS, as Attorney General of the State of Alabama. Appellee.

No. 20620.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

December 3, 1964.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama; Frank M. Johnson, Jr., Judge.

Harry H. Riddick, R. P. Denniston, Mobile, Ala., Hamilton, Denniston, Butler & Riddick, Mobile, Ala., of counsel, for appellant.

Nicholas S. Hare, Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., Robert P. Bradley, Asst. Atty. Gen., MacDonald Gallion, Montgomery, Ala., Robert B. Albritton, Andalusia, Ala., William G. O'Rear, Montgomery, Ala., Albrittons & Rankin, Andalusia, Ala., Gallion & Hare, Montgomery, Ala., of counsel, for appellee.

James E. Folson, pro se., by C. LeNoir Thompson, Bay Minetta, Ala., amicus curiae.

Before RIVES, WISDOM and BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

In a full and carefully documented opinion the district court properly decided this controversy. State of Alabama v. Kelley, M.D.Ala.1963, 214 F. Supp. 745. No good purpose would be served by this Court's paraphrasing and expanding the opinion of the district court. Subject to further proceedings in the district court, in accordance with that court's retention of jurisdiction for the purpose of determining any equities between the parties not previously determined, the judgment is affirmed.

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