United States v. 9.6 Acres of Land United States v. 9.6 Acres of Land

United States v. 9.6 Acres of Land

C06.40347; 456 F.2d 1116 (1972)

    • USD 0.99
    • USD 0.99

Descripción editorial

In this condemnation proceeding, the Tennessee Valley Authority sought to acquire the land which is the subject of this action, and which was owned by the defendants-appellants Pearl Doom Ramage, and her husband, Hugh Ramage. The complaint alleged the execution of a contract under which the said defendants agreed to convey the land for a stated price, and in their answer defendants admit their execution of the contract. Their said answer was treated by the District Court as raising an affirmative defense based on the mental incapacity of Pearl Doom Ramage and alleging that the contract was secured by coercion and undue and improper influence on behalf of TVA personnel. The case was submitted to the District Court on the motion of the plaintiff-appellee for summary judgment filed under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and affidavits supporting and in opposition to the motion were filed, and these were presumably before the District Court at the time of the consideration of the motion, although no reference thereto is made in its memorandum and order. Similarly, depositions were taken, but whether and to what extent these were considered does not appear. This appeal was perfected from an order sustaining the motion for summary judgment.

GÉNERO
Técnicos y profesionales
PUBLICADO
1972
29 de febrero
IDIOMA
EN
Inglés
EXTENSIÓN
2
Páginas
EDITORIAL
LawApp Publishers
VENDEDOR
Innodata Book Distribution Services Inc
TAMAÑO
57.1
KB

Más libros de United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit

United States v. Wesley United States v. Wesley
2005
Ross v. Wall Street Systems Ross v. Wall Street Systems
2005
[U] Higgins v. International Union [U] Higgins v. International Union
2005
Motorists Mutual Insurance Company v. Hammond Motorists Mutual Insurance Company v. Hammond
2004
In re Huffman In re Huffman
2004
Swix v. Daisy Manufacturing Co. Swix v. Daisy Manufacturing Co.
2004