Hal Hall & Snow Blackburn Hall v. Paul J. Bleisch, 400 F.2d 896 (5th Cir. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Hal Hall & Snow Blackburn Hall v. Paul J. Bleisch, 400 F.2d 896 (5th Cir. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Alumax Mill Products, Inc. v. Congress Financial Corporation Congress Financial Corporation-Midwest Hodroff & Novotny, Hodroff & Novotny v. McGladrey Hendrickson & Pullen (ca8, 1990-08-31)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alumax Mill Products, Inc. v. Congress Financial Corporation Congress Financial Corporation-Midwest Hodroff & Novotny, Hodroff & Novotny v. McGladrey Hendrickson & Pullen
8th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
See Franklin Stainless Corp. v. Marlo Transport Corp., 748 F.2d 865, 867 (4th Cir.1984) (codefendants; 1 defendant had been dismissed); Hall v. Bleisch, 400 F.2d 896, 896-97 (5th Cir.1968) (per curiam) (codefendants; case settled), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1083 , 89 S.Ct. 864 , 21 L.Ed.2d 775 (1969).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alumax Mill Products, Inc. v. Congress Financial Corp.
8th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
See Franklin Stainless Corp. v. Mario Transport Corp., 748 F.2d 865, 867 (4th Cir.1984) (codefendants; 1 defendant had been dismissed); Hall v. Bleisch, 400 F.2d 896, 896-97 (5th Cir.1968) (per curiam) (codefendants; case settled), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1083 , 89 S.Ct. 864 , 21 L.Ed.2d 775 (1969).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hal HALL and Snow Blackburn Hall, Appellants,
v.
Paul J. BLEISCH Et Al., Appellees
25647.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Sep 30, 1968.
400 F.2d 896
1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5415
Rush Moody, Jr., Midland, Tex., for appellants, Stubbeman, McRae, Sealy & Laughlin, Midland, Tex., of counsel., John H. Splawn, Jr., Splawn & Maner, Lubbock, Tex., for appellees.
Bell, Simpson, Roberts.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The parties to this appeal were involved in a three car accident. The owner of the third car sued them in state court to recover property damages. They crossclaimed, one as against the other, for indemnity as to the third party’s property damage. The case was settled by a consent judgment in the state court. Appellees then brought suit in the federal court against the Halls, seeking damages for personal injuries.

The district court did not err in rejecting the defense based on res judicata. The issue presented in the federal suit was not in issue in the state court litigation which appellant asserts as having given rise to the bar, nor is it such an issue as would require the[*897] application of res judicata under Texas law. The ease of Ogletree v. Crates, 363 S.W.2d 431 (Tex.S.Ct.1963), relied on by the appellants, extends only to requiring the assertion of all defenses that a defendant might have against a plaintiff. We do not read it to require the assertion of possible cross-claims by co-defendants.

There is likewise no merit in the contention that the suit is barred by the failure of appellees to comply with the Texas compulsory counterclaim rule in the state court litigation. The claims asserted were crosselaims and not counterclaims. Rule 97, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 13, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and Wright, Federal Courts, p. 306 (1963).

Affirmed.