From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Myers v. Ampex, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Aug 21, 1974
498 F.2d 1092 (5th Cir. 1974)

Opinion

No. 73-3510. Summary Calendar.

Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

August 21, 1974.

Roger C. Myers, pro se.

Stanley McMurry, Dallas, Tex., for Cap. Records.

James W. Mehaffy, Beaumont, Tex., for Columbia.

R. Daniel Settle, Fort Worth, Tex., for RCA.

J. Hoke Peacock, II, Beaumont, Tex., for Harry Fox Agency, Inc.

John F. Still, pro se.

Joseph Bonner, Nowata, Okl., for other defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.



Pursuant to our remand, the district court for the Eastern District of Texas has examined Appellant's complaint in his action before the district court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The district court for the Eastern District of Texas again concluded that Appellant's claim was identical to that dismissed in the Western District of Oklahoma. We affirm, concluding that the doctrine of direct estoppel bars the claim.

Myers v. Ampex, Inc., 491 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1974).

See Estevez v. Nabers, 219 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1955); 9 Wright Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2373, at 238-39.


Summaries of

Myers v. Ampex, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Aug 21, 1974
498 F.2d 1092 (5th Cir. 1974)
Case details for

Myers v. Ampex, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ROGER C. MYERS, D/B/A ROMYCO STEREO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. AMPEX, INC.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Aug 21, 1974

Citations

498 F.2d 1092 (5th Cir. 1974)

Citing Cases

Napper v. Anderson, Henley, Shields, Bradford

The estoppel by judgment is accurately termed "direct estoppel" where the issue is actually litigated and…