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
Harvey Lawrence Burkett, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Shell Oil Company, Defendant-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 448 F.2d 59
Sept. 13, 1971
William H. Saliba, Mobile, Ala., Bryan Forrest Gill, Shirley Ann Basile, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Michael W. Graney, Washington, D. C., G. Sage Lyons, Mobile, Ala., for defendant-appellee.
Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The district court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment, holding Burkett did not have standing to sue Shell on his own behalf for an antitrust violation alleged to have arisen prior to his filing for bankruptcy. The court found this cause of action to belong to the trustee in bankruptcy, not to Burkett personally. We affirm. Fazakerly v. E. Kahn's Sons Co., 5th Cir. 1935, 75 F.2d 110.1
Appellant's brief to this Court raises two additional issues:
"Whether appellant should be allowed time to substitute the trustee as proper party plaintiff in this litigation;" and "whether the bankruptcy should be reopened and the bankruptcy court should be directed to claim or disclaim this cause of action and order either the Trustee or the Bankrupt or both to proceed with this action." It appears from appellant's brief and the record from the district court that both of these questions are presently pending before the district court as motions. Neither issue is, therefore, properly before this Court.