Browning v. Navarro, 894 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1990) | United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1990 | LawTools

Summary

The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing, holding that a party who did not appeal a district court judgment (Robbie Holloway) cannot benefit from a reversal obtained by another party (Pat Holloway) because the failure to name the non-appealing party in the notice of appeal is a jurisdictional defect under *Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co.*, 487 U.S. 312 (1988). The court also declined to consider arguments raised for the first time in a petition for rehearing, and reaffirmed that the preclusive effect of a prior Fifth Circuit decision barred the Holloways from attacking a state court judgment as fraudulent. Key topics: res judicata, preclusion, notice of appeal jurisdictional requirements, and waiver of arguments on rehearing.

Holdings

The petition for rehearing is denied. Specifically, Robbie Holloway did not appeal the district court's judgment, and the reversal in Browning II did not inure to her benefit because she was not named in the notice of appeal, which is a jurisdictional defect under Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. Additionally, the argument was raised for the first time on rehearing, which is generally not allowed.

Questions Presented

Whether Robbie Holloway is a proper party to this appeal.
Whether Robbie Holloway's argument that she should not be precluded by res judicata because she was not a party to Holloway v. Walker can be raised for the first time on rehearing.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (7)

Browning v. Navarro, 887 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1989)(followed)
Holloway v. Walker, 784 F.2d 1287 (5th Cir. 1986)(followed)
United States v. Bigler, 817 F.2d 1139 (5th Cir. 1987)(cited)
Wells v. Rushing, 760 F.2d 660 (5th Cir. 1985)(cited)
Browning v. Navarro, 826 F.2d 335 (5th Cir. 1987)(followed)
Annat v. Beard, 277 F.2d 554 (5th Cir. 1960)(overruled_in_part)
Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 108 S. Ct. 2405, 101 L. Ed. 2d 285 (1988)(followed)