Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

358 U.S. 57

79 S. Ct. 1

3 L. Ed. 2d 28

Docket No. 133 Misc.

Deen v. Hickman

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1958-10-27

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[a]ssuming as we do that the [court] will of course conform to the disposition we now make, we do not issue the writ of mandamus.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Armster v. United States District Court

Relies on Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company v. Deen · Stanley v. United States · Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company v. Deen

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Stay/motion granted · 8–0 · Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1958-10-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 70 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2003 · most notably Conover v. Montemuro (1972), General Atomic Co. v. Felter (1978)

12 federal appellate · 34 state decisions

250195819601970198019902000decided

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 →

Messrs. David C. McCord and Robert Lee Guthrie, for petitioner.

Mr. Luther Hudson, for respondent Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

In Deen v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co., 353 U.S. 925, 77 S.Ct. 715, 1 L.Ed.2d 721, this Court, having held 'that the proofs justified with reason the jury's conclusion that employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner's injury,' reversed the judgment of the Texas Court of Civil Appeals, 275 S.W.2d 529. On remand, that court held that the question of negligence was foreclosed by this Court's decision and affirmed a judgment in favor of the petitioner on condition that petitioner accept a remittitur. Tex.Civ.App., 306 S.W.2d 171. On review, the Texas Supreme Court, 312 S.W.2d 933, 942, remanded the case to the Court of Civil Appeals 'with directions to adjudicate, upon its own independent evaluation of the evidence and wholly apart from the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, whether or not the jury finding of negligence of the defendant is so against the weight and preponderance of the evidence as to require a new trial in the interest of justice and, upon the basis of its said adjudication, to either affirm the judgment of the trial court or grant a new trial.' The determination of that issue was foreclosed by Deen v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co., supra. The motion for leave to file a petition requesting this Court to mandamus the Texas Supreme Court to conform its decision to our mandate in that case is granted. Assuming as we do that the Supreme Court of Texas will of course conform to the disposition we now make, we do not issue the writ of mandamus.

¶2

Mr. Justice STEWART took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

/358/us/57 · .json · Public domain