Otis Minafee v. Clarence Jones, Sheriff, Dallas Cnty. Jail, Texas, 476 F.2d 1288 (5th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
Otis Minafee v. Clarence Jones, Sheriff, Dallas Cnty. Jail, Texas, 476 F.2d 1288 (5th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hodgen v. Forest Oil Corp. (lawd, 1994-09-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Hodgen v. Forest Oil Corp.
W.D. La. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Viger v. Geophysical Services, Inc., 338 F.Supp. 808 (W.D.La.1972), aff'd 476 F.2d 1288 (5th Cir.1973); Lodrigue v. Montegut, 1978 AMC 2272 (E.D.La.1977). 44 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hodgen v. Forest Oil Corp.
5th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, e.g., Efferson v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 816 F.Supp. 1103, 1119-21 (E.D.La.1993) (citing Layton v. Land & Marine Applicators, Inc., 522 F.Supp. 679 (E.D.La.1981)); see also Viger v. Geophysical Services, Inc., 338 F.Supp. 808, 812 (W.D.La.1972) (adopting a similar ruling in an opinion that does not specify whether the court was applying Louisiana law), opinion adopted by 476 F.2d 1288 (5th Cir.1973).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jerry B. Hodgen and Bobby Sue Hodgen v. Forest Oil Corp., Forest Oil Corp. And Ronald J. Doucet, Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs-Intervenor Defendants-Cross Claim Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, Forest Oil Corp., in Its Capacity as Platform Owner and Ronald J. Doucet, Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs-Intervenor Defendants-Cross Claim Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees v. A & a Boats, Inc., and C & G Marine Service, Inc., Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs-Intervenor Defendants-Cross Claim Defendants-Cross Claim Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross v. Operators & Consulting Services, Inc., Third Party Defendant-Cross Claim and Chancellor Insurance Co., Third Party v. Albany Insurance Co., Third Party Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Intervenor Plaintiff-Third Party
3rd Cir. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, e.g., Efferson v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 816 F.Supp. 1103, 1119-21 (E.D.La.1993) (citing Layton v. Land & Marine Applicators, Inc., 522 F.Supp. 679 (E.D.La.1981)); see also Viger v. Geophysical Services, Inc., 338 F.Supp. 808, 812 (W.D.La.1972) (adopting a similar ruling in an opinion that does not specify whether the court was applying Louisiana law), opinion adopted by 476 F.2d 1288 (5th Cir.1973). 97 Regarding a conflict of excess versus pro-rata, in Juan v. Harris, 279 So.2d 187 (La.1973), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that an excess clause also conditioned upon the tort…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Efferson v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.
E.D. La. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Viger v. Geophysical Services, Inc., 338 F.Supp. 808 (W.D.La.1972), aff'd, and adopting district court opinion, 476 F.2d 1288 (5th Cir.1973).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Otis MINAFEE, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Clarence JONES, Sheriff, Dallas County Jail, Texas, Et Al., Respondents-Appellees
72-3114.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
May 17, 1973.
476 F.2d 1288
E. Eldridge Goins, Dallas, Tex. (Court-appointed), for petitioner-appellant., Henry Wade, Crim. Dist. Atty., John B. Tolle, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Tex., John L. Hill, Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondents-appellees.
Wisdom, Ainsworth, Clark.
Published
PER CURIAM:

In this habeas corpus proceeding involving a Texas state conviction for robbery with firearms, appellees state in their brief to this Court that they were not required by the district court to respond to appellant’s application for habeas corpus and did not make an appearance in district court. They agree that the case is governed by our prior holding in Gerzin v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1972, 459 F.2d 671, and aver that appellant’s brief raises several questions which are not in the record before this Court. They contend that there is also a substantial question not raised by appellant and that is whether or not appellant has exhausted his available state remedies. Finally, appellees agree that this cause should be remanded to the district court for proper determination of these questions.

Under the circumstances it is proper that the cause be remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Vacated and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.