Case Files -- Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals En Banc Opinions, Court Term 1961-1962

File — Folder: 2

Identifier: Folder 2

Staff Only

Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. v. Roosth No. 18,830; 306 F.2d 110, (1962), cert. den. 372 U.S. 912 (1963) Mercer v. Theriot No. 19,068; 316 F.2d 635 (1963), rev'd 377 U.S. 152, reh. den. 377 U.S. 973 (1964) Opinion of Judge Wisdom. Because he believed that the proposed opinion of Judge Hutcheson, for the panel of Judges Hutcheson, Tuttle and Jones, would effectively overrule the opinion of the prior panel, Judges Hutcheson, Cameron and Brown, Chief Judge Tuttle, with whom Judge Jones agreed, requested an en banc rehearing in Roosth. Judge Hutcheson opposed the request. Similarly, Mercer found Judges Rives and Brown faced with the decision of a prior panel which they felt wrongly decided. While Judge Wisdom, the third judge on the panel, did not share their views on the merits, he joined in the en banc request. Includes proposed panel opinion of Judge Hutcheson in Roosth. Also includes TLS of Chief Judge Tuttle on en banc reconsideration of Roosth as appropriate; and TLS of Judge Hutcheson and TLS of Judge Brown on the en banc request. And includes TL of Judge Rives, TLS of Judge Brown, TLS of Judge Jones, TLS of Judge Hutcheson, and TL (and draft TL) of Judge Wisdom on the en banc request in Roosth, on en banc consideration of Mercer, and on "the law of the case," generally. And includes TLS of Judge Bell on the Roosth and Mercer en banc requests, on "the law of the case/" generally, and referring to Butler v. Bazemore, 303 F.2d 188 (1962) . And includes correspondence on the need for oral argument, in these cases, and in en banc cases, generally. See also 42:9; 43:2.