CLOVIS CARL GREEN, JR., ETC., APPELLANTS,
v.
CARL WHITE, ETC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the District Court erred by dismissing the complaint instead of holding the mandated evidentiary hearing.
After a prior appeal remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing, the District Court dismissed the complaint as malicious. The appellant's history of…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Summary Reversal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On July 21, 1980, we entered an order directing appellee to show cause why this case should not be summarily reversed and remanded for a hearing previously directed by this Court. Appellee’s response has now been filed and considered.
On July 13, 1979, this Court held that some of the claims presented by Green in this action were not frivolous. The case was remanded to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing. Green v. White, 605 F. 2d 376 (8th Cir. 1979). After the Supreme Court had denied petitions for certiorari filed by both parties, 441 U.S. 925, 99 S.Ct. 2038, 60 L.Ed.2d 400 (1980), the mandate of this Court was transmitted to the District Court.
Thereafter, instead of holding the evidentiary hearing that‘had been directed, the District Court found that the complaint was malicious and dismissed it. A motion for evidentiary hearing was denied.
We are aware of appellant’s history of multiplicious litigation. As a matter of fact, our previous opinion, 605 F. 2d at 378 n.2, referred to this history. The fact remains that this Court’s mandate, issued as a consequence of its prior opinion, requires that an evidentiary hearing be held on the issues previously found not to be frivolous.
We note that appellant’s latest filing represents that he “will not call any witnesses except himself,” and that his “testimony should last 2-4 hours.” The District Court should hold appellant to these representations.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to hold an eviden tiary hearing in accordance with this Court’s opinion of July 13, 1979.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. White, 693 F.2d 45 (8th Cir. 1982)
-
Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Director OF Institutions, 663 F.2d 55 (8th Cir. 1981)
-
Fludd v. United States Secret Serv., 771 F.2d 549 (D.C. Cir. 1985)
Authorities Cited
- Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. White, 616 F.2d 1054 (8th Cir. 1980)
- Ladany v. Overberg, 441 U.S. 925 (U.S. 1979)
- Blanding v. United States, 441 U.S. 925 (U.S. 1979)
- Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. White, 605 F.2d 376 (8th Cir. 1979)