Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Scott v. Fancher

369 F.2d 842 (1966)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...

Scott v. Fancher

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

369 F.2d 842 (1966)

Facts

William C. Fancher (plaintiff), a Texas citizen, Ray Scott (defendant), an Oklahoma citizen, and E. F. Short (defendant), an Oklahoma citizen, were involved in an automobile accident in Texas. Fancher was driving a truck owned by Petro-Fina Company of Texas (Petro-Fina) (plaintiff) when he collided head-on with Scott and subsequently hit Short. Short was killed, Fancher was seriously injured, and Scott was mildly injured. Short’s estate filed a lawsuit against Fancher, Petro-Fina, and Scott in Oklahoma state court. Petro-Fina and Fancher filed a negligence lawsuit in federal district court against Scott and Short based on diversity jurisdiction. Complete diversity existed because both plaintiffs were citizens of Texas and both defendants were citizens of Oklahoma. Scott filed a counterclaim against Fancher and Petro-Fina, and Short’s estate filed a counterclaim against Fancher and Petro-Fina and a cross-claim against Scott. The jury returned a verdict against Scott. Scott appealed, asserting that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the case. Scott argued that the district court did not have independent jurisdictional grounds to exercise jurisdiction over the cross-claim filed against him. Scott also reasoned that, under the realignment doctrine, he and Short should have been opposing parties because there was no theory of the case under which Short would have been found negligent. Lastly, Scott argued that the counterclaim Short filed against Fancher and Petro-Fina was a permissive, rather than compulsory, counterclaim.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Gewin. J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 617,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,400 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership