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
Rectangle Ranche Co. v. Board of Com'rs for Buras Levee Dist. et al
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 187 F.2d 8
Feb. 7, 1951.Rehearing Denied March 6, 1951.Writ of Certiorari Denied April 30, 1951.See 71 S.Ct. 742
Louis C. Guidry, Taylor Caffrey, John E. Jackson and Baldwin J. Allen, all of New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Cullen R. Liskow, Lake Charles, La., James W. Hopkins, L. H. Perez, Chalin O. Perez and Harry F. Stiles, Jr., all of New Orleans, La., for appellees.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and McCORD and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal brings up for review the sole question whether the construction the district judge gave to section 11 of Act 18 of the Louisiana Legislature of 1894, LSA-RS 38-791 was compelled by the decisions of the Louisiana courts on which he relied.1
Appellant admits that, superficially viewed, these decisions do support the view of the district judge. It insists, though: that the language relied on in one of them was dicta; the other was inadequately considered, and, therefore, wrongly decided; that the rule of stare decisis sought to be applied by the district judge did not apply; and that the district judge was free, indeed was compelled, to construe the act for himself as plaintiffs contend it should be construed. We cannot agree.
We will not undertake to independently assay or assess the correctness of the decisions relied on by the district judge, or the others cited to us by the appellee. It is sufficient to say that we are in complete agreement with the district judge that they were binding upon him, and with appellee that the judgment should be affirmed.
Affirmed.
State ex rel. Board of Com'rs v. N. A. Baker & Son, 146 La. 413, 83 So. 693; Waterman v. Tidewater Assoc. Oil Co., 213 La. 588, 35 So.2d 225