Calhoun v. Bernard
Decision Date | 05 April 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 19900.,19900. |
Citation | 359 F.2d 400 |
Parties | Frank A. CALHOUN, Appellant, v. J. W. BERNARD et al., Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Frank A. Calhoun, in pro. per.
George M. Cox, Roswell Bottum, Jr., of Dillavou & Cox, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before BARNES, BROWNING and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.
This is the second appeal in this case. On the first, we remanded "for the making of further findings, either upon the evidence already received or upon such further evidence as the court may decide to hear, and for the entry of a new judgment * * *." (Calhoun v. Bernard, 9 Cir., 1964, 333 F.2d 739, 742). The basic facts are stated in that opinion, and we do not repeat them here.
The trial court did not receive new evidence, but it did make new findings. On this appeal, appellant has brought up the testimony. His primary contention is that the evidence does not support the findings. Findings I through V deal with a master agreement called the Drywall Master Agreement to which Calhoun was a party until July 31, 1959. It provides:
Between January 1 and July 31, 1959, Calhoun employed Drywall installers who worked 3,752½ hours, but made no payment to the pension trust.
The use of the word "herein" in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. United Mine Wkrs. of Amer.
...rev'd on other grounds, 400 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1968). 11 333 F.2d 739 (9th Cir. 1964), aff'd on rehearing after remand, 359 F.2d 400 (9th Cir. 1966). 12 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960). One of the noted trilogy in which the Supreme Court took a broad view of the scope of ......
-
Munoz v. Imperial County
...623 F.2d 616, 618 (9th Cir. 1980); Penn Int'l Industries v. Pennington Corp., 583 F.2d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 1978); Calhoun v. Bernard, 359 F.2d 400, 401 (9th Cir. 1966). It is already the law of the case that the injunction was issued AFFIRMED. 1 It emerged in oral argument that McDougal's ......
-
Penn Intern. Industries v. Pennington Corp.
...35 U.S.C. § 112. Appellants failed to raise this issue in the prior appeal and it is now too late for them to do so. Calhoun v. Bernard, 359 F.2d 400, 401 (9th Cir. 1966). We note, however, that the district court did consider the argument and entered findings which resolved it in Penn's Th......
-
Alioto v. Cowles Communications, Inc.
...of America, AFL-CIO, 486 F.2d 801, 803-05 (8th Cir. 1973); Haynes v. United States, 418 F.2d 1380, 1382 (Ct.Cl.1969); Calhoun v. Bernard, 359 F.2d 400, 401 (9th Cir. 1966). Defendant argues that we have discretion to consider the issue of falsity despite its failure to raise the issue earli......