U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1974

James A. Paynes v. Dan Dee Lee and John Doe

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided January 11, 1974 · Goldberg, Per Curiam, Roney, Thornberry

487 F.2d 1307; 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10614 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Johnnie A. Jones, Baton Rouge, La., for plaintiff-appellant., John F. Rau, Jr., Harvey, La., for defendants-appellees.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Crusto v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1981)
Eldridge v. Herman (Iowa 1980)
Poplar Grove Planting & Refining Co. v. Bache Halsey Stuart Inc. (District Court, M.D. Louisiana 1979)
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. U. S. Metals Depository Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1979)
United States Ex Rel. Carbone v. Manson (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1978)
City of Philadelphia v. Kenny (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1977)

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:

We previously found jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985(3) ’for a trial on the merits of this civil damage action involving rather gross acts committed against plaintiff to intimidate him from becoming a registered voter. Paynes v. *1308 Lee, 377 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1967), rev’g, 239 F.Supp. 1019 (E.D.La. 1965).

That the acts were committed against the plaintiff is undisputed. That the defendant was present and committed the offenses was denied.

After thorough written consideration of the. evidence presented in a full trial, the District Court found an irreconcilable conflict in the evidence pertaining to the identification of the defendant as the man involved in the affair. Finding nothing that would justify attaching the “perjurer” label to either side, the Court applied the legal requirement that the plaintiff carries the burden of proving each essential element of his case by a preponderance of the evidence, and concluded that the “proofs in this case simply do not, as a matter of law, justify a finding of liability on the part of the defendant.”

A review of the record reveals no clear error in the judgment that the irreconcilable evidence left the court without a preponderance upon which to base findings favorable to either side. In this situation, the party with the burden of proof necessarily loses.

Affirmed.

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