U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1966

Gibson & Odom Electric Company, Inc. v. R. F. Ball Construction Company, Inc., and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided October 28, 1966 · Jones, Coleman, Johnson

368 F.2d 182; 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4540 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Samuel I. Rosenberg, Ernest A. Carrere, Jr., Frank C. Allen, Jr., of Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, Robert J. Martin, Jr., of Polack, Rosenberg & Rittenberg, New Orleans, La., for appellant., A. J. Schmitt, Jr., George R. Blue, of Beard, Blue, Schmitt & Treen, New Orleans, La., Richard U. Simon, of Simon & Simon, Fort Worth, Tex., for appellee R. F. Ball Const. Co.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Casielles v. Taylor Rolls Royce, Inc. (5th Cir. 1981)
Casielles v. Taylor Rolls Royce, Inc. (5th Cir. 1981)
Bank of South v. Fort Lauderdale Technical College, Inc. (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1969)
Megarry Brothers, Inc. v. United States (8th Cir. 1968)
Megarry Bros. v. United States ex rel. Midwestern Electric Construction, Inc. (8th Cir. 1968)

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellee, R. F. Ball Construction Company, Inc., was the prime contractor of a construction job in New Orleans, Louisiana. The appellant, Gibson & Odom Electric Company, Inc., claimed it was the low bidder for an electrical subcontract and that it had entered into a verbal agreement with Ball to perform the electrical work. Before the documents were in satisfactory form, Ball notified Gibson & Odom that it had withdrawn from the proposed subcontract. Ball gave the electrical subcontract to another. Gibson & Odom sues for breach of contract and says that under instructions from Ball it had incurred obligations and expenses. It sought recovery both on the theory of a *183 breach of contract and on quantum meruit. The district court made findings and conclusions, deciding that no binding contract had been made and Gibson & Odom was not entitled to a recovery of damages or for anticipated profits. The district court gave Gibson a judgment of $3,496.17 as reimbursement for expenditures made in doing preliminary work. The question in the district court was primarily one of fact. The question here is whether the findings of the district court are clearly erroneous. We decide that they are not. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

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