Cunningham v. Securities Investment Co. of St. Louis
Decision Date | 23 May 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 18200.,18200. |
Parties | Mrs. Lillian Marion CUNNINGHAM, Appellant, v. SECURITIES INVESTMENT CO. OF ST. LOUIS, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Howard W. Lenfant, New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Floyd J. Reed, Jos. S. Kluchin, Jr., New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before RIVES, Chief Judge, and HUTCHESON and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
On November 11, 1958, plaintiff sued defendant alleging an invasion of her privacy. The basis of the alleged invasion of privacy was that while she was in Touro Infirmary recovering from a heart attack, defendant's agent inquired of her physician on the telephone whether or not he could speak to her about her past due automobile notes. The request was refused by plaintiff's physician, who, however, gave the message to her son, who, in turn, did nothing about it.
Plaintiff's claim was: that, when some several months later she learned of defendant's inquiry, she suffered a setback in recovery; and that the basis of this setback was that she did not want her physician to know of her financial position.
Defendant filed an answer and took depositions of plaintiff and her physicians.
On the basis of this discovery defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.1 The motion was argued, whereupon plaintiff's counsel requested and received additional time to file rebuttal evidence and cross affidavits, but did not file any controversion. In due course the matter was submitted on the undisputed facts set out in note 1, supra, and the district judge entered summary judgment2 for defendant.
Here urging upon us in a single specification of error that "the court erred in deciding the case upon a motion for summary judgment without learning all the facts in the case and consequently without full knowledge of the true circumstances which give rise to the cause of action", plaintiff-appellant insists that she was "in effect deprived of her day in court". By thus standing on her pleadings, without controverting the case made by defendant in support of its motion, she is apparently of the opinion that by abstaining from controversion of defendant's showing, and, therefore, in effect refusing to participate in the proceedings for summary judgment, she could and did abort the trial on the merits by summary judgment. This is made even plainer by the further statements in the specification of error:
(Emphasis supplied.)
In so urging, appellant goes contrary to Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A., and the law of the cases as it is settled in this circuit and generally elsewhere.
In American Insurance Co. v. Gentile Bros. Co., 5 Cir., 109 F.2d 732, 735, where the appellant, as here, did not file counter-affidavits controverting the facts set forth in the depositions and affidavits and made no effort to show that controverting facts, if any, could be presented at a later time, this court said:
Moore's Federal Practice, in its accurate and thorough commentary on summary judgment procedure, as it is set out in the rules and established in the cases, shows how lacking in substance is appellant's contention that she has been unjustly deprived of a trial on the merits:
In the case of Surkin v. Charteris, cited above, at page 79, this court, in an opinion which has been universally cited...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sagers v. Yellow Freight System, Inc.
...were to go to trial on the merits" quoting 6 Moore, Federal Practice, P56.22(2), at 2822 (1972), quoted in Cunningham v. Securities Investment Co., 5 Cir. 1960, 278 F.2d 600, 603. Moreover, the mere fact that the unions vigorously disputed the legal conclusions to be drawn from the facts pr......
-
Norton v. McShane
...trial as to whether the defendants were acting within the line and scope of their official duties. See Cunningham v. Securities Investment Company, 5 Cir.1960, 278 F.2d 600, 602, 603. The plaintiffs introduced no evidence whatever, and thus failed completely to meet the burden resting upon ......
-
Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs., Inc.
...of undue publicity to private debts, has been held to be an invasion of the debtor's right of privacy." Cunningham v. Sec. Inv. Co. of St. Louis , 278 F.2d 600, 604 (5th Cir. 1960). And that appears to be the general rule. See Annotation, Public Disclosure of Person's Indebtedness as Invasi......
-
Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs.
...publicity to private debts, has been held to be an invasion of the debtor's right of privacy." Cunningham v. Sec. Inv. Co. of St. Louis, 278 F.2d 600, 604 (5th Cir. 1960). And that appears to be the general rule. See Annotation, Public Disclosure of Person's Indebtedness as Invasion of Priv......