Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

EVANS PRODUCTION CORPORATION v. SHAW, 277 F.2d 927 (5th Cir. 1960)

EVANS Prod. Corp., Appellant & Cross-Appellee, v. Don J.SHAW, Appellee & Cross-Appellant., 277 F.2d 927 (5th Cir. 1960)

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1960-05-20
Topic
general

EVANS PRODUCTION CORPORATION v. SHAW, 277 F.2d 927 (5th Cir. 1960) EVANS PRODUCTION CORPORATION, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Don J.SHAW, Appellee and Cross-Appellant. No. 17931.United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. May 20, 1960.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed EVANS PRODUCTION CORPORATION v. SHAW, 277 F.2d 927 (5th Cir. 1960). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
EVANS PRODUCTION CORPORATION v. SHAW,277 F.2d 927(5th Cir. 1960)
EVANS PRODUCTION CORPORATION, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Don J.
SHAW, Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
No. 17931.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 20, 1960.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas; Joe Estes, Judge.
R.G. Storey, Hubert D. Johnson, Dallas, Tex., Mahlon E. Lewis, Pittsburg, Pa., for appellant.

Frank J. Scurlock, Dallas, Tex., for appellee.
Before RIVES, Chief Judge, and JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.Page 928
PER CURIAM.
On petition for rehearing, the appellant has attacked the opinion in this case as both factually and legally erroneous. The first factual error adverted to is that Shaw was the only witness to testify as to the value of his services whereas the opinion refers to "his witnesses," implying that there were others. Secondly, the statement in note 11 of the opinion, 276 F.2d at page 319, to the effect that the Evans' enterprise had profited several millions of dollars from its operations is said to be wrong. Upon re-examination, we conclude that both of these factual criticisms are well taken. At the same time, however, we do not regard either of these facts as crucial. The legal principles relied upon remain applicable to the case and require that the petition for rehearing be, and it is

Denied.Page 929Page 28