Venable v. Meyers, 73-2457

Decision Date16 July 1974
Docket NumberNo. 73-2457,73-2457
PartiesRichard VENABLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William H. MEYERS, Defendant-Appelleant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Howard R. Lonergan, Portland Or., for defendant-appellant.

Richard P. Noble and Raymond J. Conboy, Pozzi, Wilson & Atchison, Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BROWNING, DUNIWAY and SNEED, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, William Meyers, appeals from an adverse judgment entered by the district court nunc pro tunc in this diversity action.

Meyers, a self-proclaimed naturopathic physician, operated a health food store in Caldwell, Idaho. He was not legally authorized to dispense prescriptions. In early 1968 he obtained a potent and potentially dangerous prescription medicine from two pharmaceutical concerns, each named Paramount Drug and Supply Company. He repackaged and relabelled the medicine as Wonder Formula 101-102 and sold it as a remedy for arthritis, neuritis and rheumatism. Venable, an Oregon resident, made several mail order purchases of the medicine from Meyers in 1968 and 1969 He brought this diversity action against Meyers and the two drug companies, claiming that he suffered severe personal injuries from the use of Wonder Formula 101-102.

On November 28, 1972, the matter was heard before the district court sitting without a jury. All issues of liability and damage were heard and submitted on that date, and the trial court found Meyers and one of the drug companies liable, but took the question of the other drug company's liability and the issue of punitive damages under advisement.

On December 9, 1972, before the entry of judgment, Venable died. His attorney then filed a motion for entry of judgment nunc pro tunc as of the date of trial and submission. Before the district court ruled on the motion, Venable's personal representative reached a settlement with the two drug companies. The trial judge, on March 14, 1973, entered judgment nunc pro tunc against Meyers alone, as of November 28, 1972, the date of trial and decision as to liability, with the issue of damages submitted.

On appeal, Meyers first attacks the nunc pro tunc judgment as exceeding the trial court's power. His attack is unwarranted. Under the circumstances, the entry of judgment nunc pro tunc as of the date all the issues were submitted to the district court was appropriate. Mitchell v. Overman, 1881, 103 U.S. 62, 64-65, 26 L.Ed. 369. See also Harris v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
62 cases
  • Patterson v. Rodgers
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • April 28, 2010
    ...113 (D.Conn.1984) (citing United States v. Jeff-Lewis Savings & Loan Association, 530 F.Supp. 623, 628 (N.D.N.Y.1982); Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1090, 95 S.Ct. 683, 42 L.Ed.2d 683 (1974)). A motion to proceed in forma pauperis must be filed wi......
  • Middleton v. Dan River, Inc., Civ. A. No. 83-T-1129-N
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • August 15, 1985
    ...Erie rule requires applying the doctrine of judgment nunc pro tunc is bolstered by the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215 (9th Cir.1974). There, the court expressed doubt whether Erie compelled the application of Oregon law over "the power of the federal court......
  • IN RE PAGO PAGO AIRCRASH OF JANUARY 30, 1974, MDL No. 176.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • October 9, 1981
    ...64-65, 26 L.Ed. 369 (1881); Unique Systems, Inc. v. Zotos International, Inc., 622 F.2d 373, 380-81 (8th Cir. 1980); Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974); Stone v. Currigan, 138 Colo. 442, 334 P.2d 740, 743 (1959); 6A Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 58.08, at 58-301 to 309 (2d ......
  • Baron v. Staff Benefits Mgmt.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • February 27, 2023
    ...The granting or denial of leave to proceed IFP in civil cases is within the sound discretion of the district court. Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cann......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT