U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1948

Doyle v. Division No. 1127 of Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, Electric Ry. & Motor Coach Employees of America

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided June 30, 1948 · Hutcheson, McCord, Waller

168 F.2d 876; 22 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2265; 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 3145 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Malcolm E. Lafargue, U. S. Atty., and J. Lyle DeBellevue, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Shreveport, La., for appellants., LeRoy Smallenberger, of Shreveport, La., Hans J. Lehmann and O. David Zimring, both of Chicago, 111., and Aubrey B. Hirsch, of Baton Rouge, La., for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Addison v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co (5th Cir. 1953)
Venzel v. United States Steel Co. (6th Cir. 1953)
Howie v. Lance, Inc. (4th Cir. 1949)

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 of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The questions involved here are factual and relate to the date, or dates, upon which the seniority rights of the plaintiffs began. The Judge below made full and definite findings of fact and conclusions of law. His legal conclusions are properly applied to the facts that he had found.1 No worthwhile service will be rendered to the Bench and bar by a repitition of that which the lower Court has clearly and correctly stated. We cannot say that either the finding of fact that the seniority rights of the nonreteran plaintiffs were acquired upon the dates that they were approved by their employer as inter-city drivers, or the finding of fact that the seniority rights of the ex-servicemen drivers were not shown by the evidence to have been acquired prior to approval by their employer as inter-*city drivers, was clearly erroneous. On the contrary, we think that there is substantial support in the evidence for those findings. Under Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, such findings should be upheld in all instances where we cannot say that they are clearly erroneous.

The judgment of the lower Court is affirmed.

Lesher v. P. R. Mallary & Co., Inc. (Kuhn v. P. R. Mallary & Co., Inc., Estes v. P. R. Mallary & Co., Inc.) 7 Cir., 166 F.2d 983.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.