Linda Harre and Her Husband, William Harre v. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Etc., and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Etc.
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)
- Seattle Packaging Corp. v. Barnard (Wash. Ct. App. 1999)
- Trantham v. Socoper Inc (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama 2022)
- Armstrong v. Cadle Co. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2007)
- Bush Ranch, Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. (United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 1995)
- Subroto Roy v. University of Hawaii (9th Cir. 1994)
- Estate of Page v. Litzenburg (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993)
- Harduvel v. General Dynamics Corp. (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1992)
- Hillsdale Associates, S.C. Enterprises, Shurl Curci v. East Channel Corporation, N.V. (9th Cir. 1991)
- National Oil Corp. v. Libyan Sun Oil Co. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1990)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
*1304 ON RECONSIDERATION BY THE COURT
Since our opinion was handed down on January 21, 1985, 750 F.2d 1501, Dr. Louis Keith, whose trial testimony we considered and referred to as false and perjurious, has been indicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice arising out of his trial testimony. A jury acquitted him on two perjury counts, and a mistrial was declared on the obstruction of justice count. Dr. Keith moved for judgment of acquittal on the obstruction of justice count on preclusion grounds, and the trial court granted his motion and entered a judgment of acquittal on that count. A determination of the relevance of these events, which emanated from the fact that the jury in the criminal case did not find that the defendant therein had been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, should be first made by the trial court. We deem it appropriate that, in its consideration, the trial court be free of the references in our opinion to perjury and false testimony, and those references are VACATED. The proper characterization of Dr. Keith’s testimony and the consequences thereof in this case are for the district court in the first instance.
The judgment of the district court is VACATED and the cause is REMANDED to the district court for such determination and for such other proceedings as may be considered appropriate. The motion of Dr. Louis G. Keith to intervene, and all other motions and petitions pending before this court, are DENIED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.