Summary
On remand from the Supreme Court, the district court denied the plaintiffs’ proposed amended and supplemental complaint. It set aside its prior decree, dismissed the complaint and all amendments and supplements, denied all requested relief, and taxed costs against the plaintiffs.
Holdings
- A district court may not allow an amendment or supplemental bill that is inconsistent with the mandate of the Supreme Court following appellate review.
- The district court was required to set aside its prior decree and dismiss the bill of complaint, including its amendments and supplements.
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court had authority on remand to allow plaintiffs to file an amended and supplemental bill of complaint.
- Whether the district court was required by the Supreme Court's mandate to set aside its prior decree and dismiss the complaint.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (3)
- Gulf Refining Co. v. United States of America, 269 U.S. 125, 46 S. Ct. 52, 70 L. Ed. 195(applied)
- Mortgage Loan Co. v. Livingston, 66 F. (2d) 636 (C.C.A.), certiorari denied, 290 U.S. 685, 54 S. Ct. 121, 78 L. Ed. 590(applied)
- Williams v. Ansehl, 279 F. 550 (C.C.A.)(applied)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…