From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. Francine Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Apr 3, 1970
425 F.2d 1295 (5th Cir. 1970)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that the court "clearly had the right to take notice of its own files and records and it had no duty to grind the same corn a second time"

Summary of this case from Paul v. De Holczer
See 25 Summaries

Opinion

No. 28594 Summary Calendar.

April 3, 1970.

Richard Kanner, Aaron M. Kanner, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee cross-appellant.

James R. McKnight, Chicago, Ill., Robert E. Ziegler, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for defendant-appellant cross-appellee.

Before WISDOM, COLEMAN and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I.

This appeal presents substantially the same issues as those recently decided in Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. Milsan, Inc., 5 Cir., 1970, 423 F.2d 845.

In the court below Francine Company, Inc. moved for a summary judgment on the ground "that the issues created by this cause have heretofore been decided adversely to the plaintiff by reason of the judgment entered [in Aloe v. Milsan]". The District Court "after having interrogated counsel" concluded that "no further material facts are in actual good faith controverted". Summary judgment was accordingly entered.

Francine states in its brief that as to Aloe it relies upon and adopts the brief filed by Milsan in No. 27,791, supra. Francine now contends only that it should be allowed to use the Aloe plant design on its products.

Aloe says that Francine should not be allowed to appeal on the record compiled in another case, that is, in No. 27,791, supra.

The District Court clearly had the right to take notice of its own files and records and it had no duty to grind the same corn a second time. Once was sufficient.

We are, therefore, bound by the decision rendered in Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. Milsan, Inc., supra, and we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Affirmed.

Summaries of

Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. Francine Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Apr 3, 1970
425 F.2d 1295 (5th Cir. 1970)

holding that the court "clearly had the right to take notice of its own files and records and it had no duty to grind the same corn a second time"

Summary of this case from Paul v. De Holczer

holding that "[t]he District Court clearly had the right to take notice of its own files and records"

Summary of this case from Erwin v. South Carolina

holding that "[t]he District Court clearly had the right to take notice of its own files and records"

Summary of this case from Spears v. Rivera

holding that "[t]he District Court clearly had the right to take notice of its own files and records"

Summary of this case from Bowers v. Bosh

holding that "[t]he District Court clearly had the right to take notice of its own files and records"

Summary of this case from Bradford v. Rivera

holding a district court may take notice of its own files and records

Summary of this case from Michau v. Warden

holding a district court may take notice of its own files and records

Summary of this case from Michau v. Warden

holding that "[t]he District Court clearly had the right to take notice of its own files and records"

Summary of this case from Butler v. Bazen

holding that "[t]he District Court clearly had the right to take notice of its own files and records"

Summary of this case from Gilliam v. Cartlidge

holding that "[t]he District Court clearly had the right to take notice of its own files and records"

Summary of this case from Henderson v. Fci-Estill

explaining that a federal court may take judicial notice of the contents of its own records, as well as those records and proceedings of other courts

Summary of this case from Scott v. Malone

explaining that a federal court may take judicial notice of the contents of its own records, as well as those records of other courts

Summary of this case from Jeno v. Gallam

explaining that a federal court may take judicial notice of the contents of its own records, as well as those records of other courts

Summary of this case from Booker v. Toal

noting that a federal court may take judicial notice of the contents of its own records, as well as those records and proceedings of other courts

Summary of this case from Nolan v. U.S. Bank

noting that a federal court may take judicial notice of the contents of its own records, as well as those records and proceedings of other courts

Summary of this case from The Estate of Doe v. City of North Charleston

explaining that a federal court may take judicial notice of the contents of its own records, as well as those records of other courts

Summary of this case from Brady v. Holmes

noting that a federal court may take judicial notice of the contents of its own records, as well as those records and proceedings of other courts

Summary of this case from Grant v. Peter Wolf & Assocs. PC

stating that a federal court may take judicial notice of the contents of its own records, as well as those records of other courts

Summary of this case from Bloodworth v. Warden, FCI Bennettsville

explaining that a federal court may take judicial notice of the contents of its own records, as well as those records of other courts

Summary of this case from Coffy v. Ballentine

explaining that a federal court may take judicial notice of the contents of its own records, as well as those records of other courts

Summary of this case from Smalls v. South Carolina

explaining that a federal court may take judicial notice of the contents of its own records, as well as those records of other courts

Summary of this case from Mazyck v. Dir., Al Cannon Det. Ctr.

explaining that a federal court may take judicial notice of the contents of its own records, as well as those records of other courts

Summary of this case from Brady v. Holmes

explaining that a federal court may take judicial notice of the contents of its own records, as well as those records of other courts

Summary of this case from Wright v. Wright

explaining that a federal court may take judicial notice of the contents of its own records, as well as those records of other courts

Summary of this case from Wright v. Wright

explaining that a federal court may take judicial notice of the contents of its own records, as well as those records of other courts

Summary of this case from Coffy v. Hannon
Case details for

Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. Francine Co.

Case Details

Full title:ALOE CREME LABORATORIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee Cross Appellant, v…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Apr 3, 1970

Citations

425 F.2d 1295 (5th Cir. 1970)

Citing Cases

Littlejohn v. Blanton

See pleadings in Quintin Littlejohn v. David Edwards Toyota; Mark Edwards; and All Agents in Active Concert,…

Davenport v. U.S.

Although the above-captioned case is a civil rights action against officials or employees of the Internal…

384 Citing Cases