Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Warden v. Barnett, 01-30886 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 01-30886 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 13, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ m 01-30886 _ CARL WARDEN, TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF TAMMY LYNN PARKER SECURITY AND INVESTMENT TRUST, ON BEHALF OF JAMIE DEAN PARKER SECURITY AND INVESTMENT TRUST, ON BEHALF OF JOYCE DARLENE DOUGLAS CLASS TRUST, ON BEHALF OF ERNEST L. PARKER CHARITABLE REMAINDER ANNUITY TRUST, ON BEHALF OF MIDGE PARKER CHARITABLE REMAINDER ANNUITY TRUST, ON BEHALF OF ERNEST L. PARKER CHARITABLE REMAINDER UNITRUST, ON BEHALF OF MIDGE PARKER CHARITABLE REMAI
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________ m 01-30886 _______________ CARL WARDEN, TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF TAMMY LYNN PARKER SECURITY AND INVESTMENT TRUST, ON BEHALF OF JAMIE DEAN PARKER SECURITY AND INVESTMENT TRUST, ON BEHALF OF JOYCE DARLENE DOUGLAS CLASS TRUST, ON BEHALF OF ERNEST L. PARKER CHARITABLE REMAINDER ANNUITY TRUST, ON BEHALF OF MIDGE PARKER CHARITABLE REMAINDER ANNUITY TRUST, ON BEHALF OF ERNEST L. PARKER CHARITABLE REMAINDER UNITRUST, ON BEHALF OF MIDGE PARKER CHARITABLE REMAINDER UNITRUST, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS RICHARD D. BARNETT, Defendant-Appellant. _________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana m 98-CV-1685 _________________________ June 12, 2002 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This appeal is the outgrowth of a long, acri- monious battle over the ownership of assets that were alleged to have been transferred be- tween business partners, then apparently sold by the transferees, and then apparently placed in various trusts, allegedly to avoid returning them to the original transferors. The district court entered a declaratory judgment applying an earlier decision of that court as res judicata. We have reviewed the briefs and pertinent portions of the record and have heard the ar- guments of counsel. The district court com- mitted no reversible error. The judgment, ac- cordingly, is AFFIRMED. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum- stances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 2
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