U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1977

Gleason v. Hall

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided August 5, 1977 · Bootle, Gee, Wisdom

557 F.2d 1052 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Billy R. Pesnell, Shreveport, La., for plaintiff-appellant-cross appellee., Henry A. Politz, Fred H. Sutherland, Shreveport, La., for Representative T. L. Hall., Sam A. Freyer, Shreveport, La., for Representative Southern Pacific Trans. Co., Jerold L. Perlman, Shreveport, La., for Representative Travelers.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Estate of Jackson v. Phillips Petroleum Co. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama 1987)
Gleason v. Hall (3d Cir. 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 of the Court

PER CURIAM:

In an opinion in this case issued July 11, 1977, 555 F.2d 514-521, this Court allowed a plaintiff who had accepted “under protest” a remittitur to challenge on appeal the propriety of the remittitur. The defendants cross-appealed on the ground that the district court erred in not requiring a larger remittitur by the plaintiff. We affirmed the district court, relying on the Fifth Circuit rule that:

The standard for review ... is strict; and the trial court will be reversed only if the party opposed to the remittitur shows an abuse of discretion on the part of the judge.

Bonura Sea Land Service, Inc., 5 Cir. 1974, 505 F.2d 665, 669. We cited also Gorsalitz v. Olin Mathiesen Chemical Corporation, 5 Cir. 1972, 456 F.2d 180, 181, cert. denied, 407 U.S. 921, 92 S.Ct. 2463, 32 L.Ed.2d 807, reh. denied, 409 U.S. 899, 93 S.Ct. 108, 34 L.Ed.2d 159.

The Supreme Court has now held in Donovan v. Penn Shipping Co., 1977, 429 U.S. 648, 97 S.Ct. 835, 51 L.Ed.2d 112, 114:

In order to clarify whatever uncertainty might exist, we now reaffirm the longstanding rule that a plaintiff in federal court, whether prosecuting a state or federal cause of action, may not appeal from a remittitur order he has accepted [even though the order stated that he accepted “under protest”].

*1053Accordingly, our earlier opinion decided July 11, 1977, is withdrawn. The appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed.

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