Luther W. White, Iii, Administrator C.T.A. of the Estate of Donald E. Meeks, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee., 359 F.2d 989 (4th Cir. 1966)

Federal Circuits, 4th Cir. (April 13, 1966)

Docket number: 10310

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/luther-white-iii-administrator-meeks-36716849
Id. vLex: VLEX-36716849

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - Luther W. White, Iii, Administrator, C.T.A. of the Estate of Donald E. Meeks, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee., 317 F.2d 13 (4th Cir. 1963)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

RSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - Vera G. Eanes, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee., 407 F.2d 823 (4th Cir. 1969)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Raye Dinnerstein, Executrix of the Estate of Howard Dinnerstein, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellant., 486 F.2d 34 (2nd Cir. 1973)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Ralph Partridge and Betty Partridge, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Two Unknown Police Officers of the City of Houston, Texas, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 751 F.2d 1448 (5th Cir. 1985)

See all citations to this document

Text:

George H. Gray, Norfolk, Va. (Outland & Gray, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellant.

James A. Oast, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. (C. V. Spratley, Jr., U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BRYAN and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This case was here once before after the entry of summary judgment for the defendant. White v. United States, 4 Cir., 317 F.2d 13. We vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case for trial on the issue of negligence. Thereafter, a full plenary hearing was had and evidence, including the testimony of expert witnesses, was introduced by both parties. Thereafter, the District Court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and, upon their basis, it again entered judgment for the defendant.

We accept the District Court's findings of fact as not being clearly erroneous, and, on the basis those findings provide, its ultimate conclusion that there was no negligence in the care and treatment of Meeks.

While the issue would be highly debatable if before us de novo, we find no reversible error in the record.

Affirmed.