DEEN
v.
HICKMAN, CHIEF JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS, ET AL.

U.S. | 1958-10-27
No. 133
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision- of this case.
358 U.S. 57 Supreme Court of the United States (1958) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 3 L. Ed. 2d 28 · 79 S. Ct. 1 · 1958 U.S. LEXIS 252 · SCDB 1958-004
Cited by 20 cases

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.

Synopsis

In this mandamus proceeding, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Texas Supreme Court had violated the Court's prior mandate in Deen v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co. by ordering the lower court to re-evaluate a negligence finding that the Supreme Court had already determined was supported by sufficient evidence. The Court granted the motion for leave to file a mandamus petition and made clear that the Texas Supreme Court must conform to the original mandate without permitting independent re-evaluation of the negligence question.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

In Deen v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co., 353 U. S. 925, this Court, having held “that the proofs justified with reason the jury’s Conclusion that employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner’s injury,” reversed the judgment of the Texas Court of Civil Appeals. On remand, that court held that the question of negligence was foreclosed by this Court’s decision and affirmed a judgment in favor of the petitioner on condition that petitioner accept a remittitur. On review, the Texas Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Civil Appeals “with directions ... to adjudicate, upon its own independent evaluation of the evidence and wholly apart from the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, whether or not the jury finding of negligence of the defendant ... is so against the weight and preponderance of the evidence as to require a new trial in the interest of justice, and, upon the basis of its said adjudication, to either affirm the judgment of the trial court or grant a new trial.” The determination of that issue was foreclosed by Deen v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co., supra. The motion for leave to file a petition requesting this Court to mandamus the Texas Supreme Court to conform its decision to our mandate in that case is granted. Assuming as we do that the Supreme Court of Texas will of course conform to the disposition we now make, we do not issue the writ of mandamus.

Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision-of this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Conover v. Honorable Frank M. Montemuro, Jr., 477 F.2d 1073 (3d Cir. 1972)
    …§ 1447(b) which authorizes the lower federal courts to issue writs of certiorari, and such writs have on occasion been directed to state courts. E. g., State Improvement-Development Co. v. Leininger, 226 F. 884 (N.D.Cal.1914). In Deen v. Hickman, 358 U.S. 57, 79 S.Ct. 1, 3 L.Ed.2d 28 (1958) (per curiam), the Supreme Court faced the problem of a contumacious state court. It granted leave to file a petition for mandamus against a Texas court which persisted in a course deemed to be inconsistent with the m…
  • Bucolo v. Adkins, 424 U.S. 641 (U.S. 1976)
    …Mr. Justice Stevens, with whom Mr. Justice Rehnquist joins, dissenting. In Deen v. Hickman, 358 U. S. 57, it was necessary to require the Texas Supreme Court to conform its decision to our mandate in order to make sure that further proceedings in the underlying litigation would be properly conducted. In this case no matter what we do, there will be no…
    1 / 2
  • Gen. Atomic Co. v. Felter, 436 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1978)
    …t that it places any restriction whatsoever upon GAC’s exercise [*498] of its right to litigate arbitration claims in federal forums, we do not at present issue a formal writ of mandamus.2 See Bucolo v. Adkins, 424 U. S. 641 (1976); Deen v. Hickman, 358 U. S. 57 (1958). It is so ordered. Although the court stated that its order staying the arbitration proceedings “shall not in and of itself operate to preclude Defendant General Atomic Company from asserting its claimed federal rights in appropriate judici…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw