Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google
Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google
News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google
Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Board of Com'rs for Atchafalaya Basin Levee Dist. et al. v. Smyth et al
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. - 187 F.2d 11
February 7, 1951 Rehearing Denied April 19, 1951
Ashton L. Stewart, Baton Rouge, La., Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Atty. Gen. of La., Carroll Buck, First Asst. Atty. Gen. of La., Charles H. Dameron, Baton Rouge, La., Ferdinand C. Claiborne, New Roads, La., for appellant.
Roberts C. Milling, New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and McCORD and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appealing from an order denying defendants', and granting plaintiffs', motion for summary judgment, and conceding that the district judge was right in rejecting the primary contention they made below, appellants seek now to put forward as a ground for reversal an entirely different theory and view from any of those they relied on below.
Appellees, while insisting that the theory which appellants seek now to put forward is as untenable as the one on which they lost below, urge upon us that having tried and lost the case below upon one theory, they should not be permitted now to retry the case in this court upon a wholly different one.
We agree with appellees that the issues submitted to the district judge for decision were correctly determined and disposed of. We agree with them, too, that the case, having been tried and determined adversely to appellants on the theories they elected to try it on, may not be retried here on the wholly different one they now propose to try out,1 and that the judgment should be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Bates v. Coe, 98 U.S. 31, 25 L.Ed. 68; Hatcher v. Northwestern National Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 184 F. 23; American Dirigold Corp. v. Dirigold Metals Corp., 6 Cir., 125 F.2d 446