U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1951

Tucker v. National Linen Service Corp.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided May 10, 1951 · Hutcheson, McCORD, Wright

188 F.2d 265 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Wm. G. McRae, Atlanta, Ga., R. A. Dowling, New Orleans, La., for appellants., Sidney A. Wolff, New York City, Max F. Goldstein, James A. Branch, Atlanta, Ga., Louis L. Rosen, Leonard B. Levy, New Orleans, La., Augusto P. Miceli, Rudolph J. Weinmann, George B. Matthews, Julian B. Humphrey, and Azzo J. Plough, all of New Orleans, La., Wm. G. Grant, Herbert J. Haas, Elliott Goldstein, B. D. Murphy, and Antha Mulkey, all of Atlanta, Ga., John Wesley Weekes, Decatur, Ga., Joseph F. Haas, Atlanta, Ga., for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Tucker v. New Orleans Laundries, Inc. (La. 1959)
Tucker v. New Orleans Laundries, Inc. (La. Ct. App. 1962)
Crawford v. Lydick (District Court, W.D. Michigan 1959)
Tucker v. National Linen Service Corp. (5th Cir. 1953)
Smith v. Sperling (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1953)

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

*266 HUTCHESON, Chief Judge.

This appeal from a judgment dismissing for want of requisite diversity the stockholders derivative action, brought on behalf of Crescent City Laundries, Inc., presents fundamentally the same questions as are presented in the case of Tucker v. New Orleans Laundries, 5 Cir., 188 F.2d 263.

Heard after the New Orleans case was heard and decided, the opinion and judgment of the district judge in this case followed and were based largely on the opinion and judgment there.

While in the course of his decision, the district judge did discuss and consider other matters, the decision on the diversity issue is dispositive of the case, and makes unnecessary our consideration of those matters.

It is sufficient to say that the decision in this case is controlled by that in the New Orleans case and that, for the reasons given in the affirmance of the judgment in that case, the judgment of dismissal in this case is

Affirmed.

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