John v. Holmes et al., Appellants, v. United States of America et al., Appellees, 353 F.2d 785 (5th Cir. 1966)
Annotate this CaseRehearing Denied February 23, 1966
John V. Holmes, N. C., Durward E. Willis, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
Walter P. North, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Paul J. Kemp, Atty., S. E. C., Washington, D. C., Julius M. Hulsey, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., Philip A. Loomis, Jr., Gen. Counsel, Charles L. Goodson, U. S. Atty., for Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta, Ga., Martin D. Newman, Atty., Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before WISDOM and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This suit was filed in the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. All the essential elements of the controversy had thrice been litigated and decided in Oklahoma, (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bond and Share Corp., D.C. 229 F. Supp. 88) and North Carolina (Holmes v. Eddy, 4 Cir., 341 F.2d 477). When this was appropriately raised in the Court below there was summary judgment for Defendants by application of the rule of res adjudicata.
This determination, 231 F. Supp. 971, was correct.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen (1948) 333 U.S. 591, 68 S. Ct. 715, 92 L. Ed. 898. Baltimore S.S. Co. v. Phillips (1927) 274 U.S. 316, 47 S. Ct. 600, 71 L. Ed. 1069. Matthews v. Wolvin, 5 Cir., 266 F.2d 722, and Estevez v. Nabers, 5 Cir., 219 F.2d 321.
Affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
