Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

245 F. 556

Docket No. 4650.

Bates County v. Wills

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided July 2, 1917.)

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1917-07-02

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri; Arba S. Van Valkenburgh, Judge.</p>

2 counsel of record

Relies on Bates County v. Wills

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

On rehearing · Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1917-07-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 1980

1 district · 1 state decisions

3019171920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri; Arba S. Van Valkenburgh, Judge.

¶2On rehearing. Part of original opinion (239 Fed. 785, — C. C. A. —) withdrawn.

¶3Frank Hagerman, of Kansas City, Mo. (Thomas J. Smith, of Butler, Mo., on the briefs), for plaintiff in error.

¶4Frederick N. Judson, of St. Louis, Mo. (William Mumford, of Pitts-field, 111., Frank M. Lowe, of Kansas City, Mo., and John F. Green, of St. Louis, Mo., on the briefs), for defendants in error.

¶5Before SANBORN, SMITH, and CARLAND, Circuit Judges.

¶6PER CURIAM.

¶7The second trial of this case was reviewed in the opinion of this court filed February 1, 1917, published in 239 Fed. 785, — C. C. A. —. Each of the parties to the litigation moved for a rehearing, the motions were granted, and the case has been again heard.

¶8A critical examination of the pleadings has convinced us that the questions discussed and decided in paragraphs numbered 2, 3, 4, and 5 in that opinion were not fairly at issue, and for that reason, and to the end that what was said may not constitute the law of the case, and thus be conclusive upon the trial court at the next trial, and not because the court is convinced that the views expressed were erroneous, those paragraphs of the opinion will be withdrawn, and the questions there considered left open for subsequent determination and the remainder of the opinion and the order for a reversal of the judgment and for a new trial will be affirmed.

/245/f1d/556 · .json · Public domain