Memoranda, cases argued March , 27-30, 1961 -- New Orleans, Louisiana -- before Judges Cameron and Wisdom, and District Judge Thomas., 1961

File — Folder: 1

Identifier: Folder 1

Staff Only

Blanch v. Rankin No. 18,632; 291 F.2d 217 (1961)

Includes TLS of Judge Thomas, TL of Judge Cameron, and TLS of Judge Wisdom on the merits.

California Transport Corp. v. Accentor, The No. 18,702; 289 F.2d 822 (1961)

Includes TL of Judge Wisdom on the opinion of Judge Thomas.

Continental Bank & Trust Co. v. Brandon No. 18,486; 297 F.2d 928 (1962)

Includes TLS of Judge Thomas on his proposed opinion; TLS of Judge Cameron on the proposed opinion and on certain revisions as appropriate; and TLS of Judge Rives on the merits and the proposed opinion in Brandon and the merits and opinion to be written in Hometrust Life Insurance Co. U.S.F.&G. Co., 298 F.2d 379 (1962)

See also Hometrust, 57:1.

Employers' Liability Assurance Corp., Ltd. v. Thomassie No. 18,527; 293 F.2d 110 (1961)

Includes TLS of Judge Thomas on the opinion as proposed by Judge Cameron and on a certain revision as appropriate.

Huffatutler v. Hercules Powder Co. No. 18,675; 305 F.2d 292 (1962)

See 42:9.

Humbel Oil & Refining Co. v. Martin No. 18,579; 298 F.2d 163 (1961), reh. den. 301 F.2d 313, cert. den. 371 U.A. 825 (1962)

At conference Judge Cameron favored affirmance, Judge Wisdom reversal. Judge Cameron agreed to write the opinion with the understanding that if Judge Thomas ultimately agreed with Judge Wisdom, the opinion then would be written by the latter.

Judge Thomas did agree with Judge Wisdom, and then Judge Cameron, tentatively, did likewise. On further reflection, however, Judge Cameron arrived once again at the conclusion that affirmance was required. The majority opinion reverted to Judge Wisdom, the proposed opinion of Judge Cameron to become a dissent.

Judge Wisdom then reconsidered his position and came to agree with Judge Cameron, whose opinion became the opinion of the majority.

Includes TLS (2) of Judge Thomas on the merits; TL of Judge Cameron on the merits and his changed position; TL of Judge Cameron on the merits and his proposed opinion to affirm; TL of Judge Wisdom on the proposed Cameron opinion and the merits; and , TL of Judge Wisdom on the merits and on his changed position.

Also includes TL of Judge Cameron on the merits on petition for rehearing.

Jenkins v. United States No. 18,783; 293 F.2d 96 (1961), withdrawn 298 F.2d 443, cert. den. 370 U.S. 928 (1962)

Judge Wisdom abandoned the per curiam affirmance, assigned to him, having decided instead that the case should be reversed and remanded. Judges Cameron and Thomas were not persuaded, and Judge Cameron agreed to write the opinion. Judge Cameron then determined that Van Hook v. United States, 365 U.S. 609 (1961) a more recent Supreme Court ruling, required reversal and prepared an opinion so holding.

Then came Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 reh. den. 369 U.S. 808 (1962) and the opinion to reverse was set aside.

Includes partial draft opinion to affirm, and draft opinion to reverse of Judge Wisdom; TL and TLS of Judge Wisdom, TL of Judge Cameron, and TLS (2) of Judge Thomas on the merits and on Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301 (1961); TL and TLS of Judge Cameron on the merits and on reversal as appropriate; TL of Judge Cameron on the Thomas dissent; TL of Judge Cameron, TLS of Judge Thomas and TL of Judge Wisdom on the merits after Hill.

See also McCaffrey, 76:9.

Niagra Fire Insurance Co. v. Everett No. 13,596; 292 F.2d 100 (1961)

Spratler v. Georgia Art Supply Co. No. 18,743; 295 F.2d 379 (1961)

Includes TL of Judge Cameron, TLS of Judge Thomas and TL of Judge Wisdomo nthe merits; and, TL of Judge Cameron and TLS of Judge Thomas on the Cameron opinoin.

Texas & New Orleans Railroad v. Normand No. 18,760; 292 F.2d 578 (1961)

Includes TLS of Judge Thomas on the opinion of Judge Cameron.