Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Thelma B. SEXTON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GEORGIA HIGHWAY EXPRESS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, 1975 — 514 F.2d 1002 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
Thelma B. SEXTON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GEORGIA HIGHWAY EXPRESS, INC., Defendant-Appellee
514 F.2d 1002·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1975
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Thelma B. SEXTON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GEORGIA HIGHWAY EXPRESS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 75-1262
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 13, 1975.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Sept. 29, 1975.
Thomas E. Davis, Gary F. Burns, Gadsden, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Jack W. Torbert, Gadsden, Ala., for defendant-appellee.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir., see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
PER CURIAM:
The order of the district court granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of defendant Georgia Highway Express, Inc. is affirmed.