Case Name: Mr. and Mrs. Hiram A. MATTHEWSON, Appellants, v. Judge Leo W. McCUNE, Appellee; UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Mary V. MITZEL, Appellant, v. Judge Leo W. McCUNE, Appellee; Mrs. Mary V. MITZEL and Mr. and Mrs. Hiram A. Matthewson, Appellants, v. William VANDERWALL et al., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1964-02-20
Citations: 327 F.2d 1001
Docket Number: Nos. 20380, 20381, 20200
Parties: Mr. and Mrs. Hiram A. MATTHEWSON, Appellants, v. Judge Leo W. McCUNE, Appellee. UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Mary V. MITZEL, Appellant, v. Judge Leo W. McCUNE, Appellee. Mrs. Mary V. MITZEL and Mr. and Mrs. Hiram A. Matthewson, Appellants, v. William VANDERWALL et al., Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 327
Pages: 1001–1002

Head Matter:
Mr. and Mrs. Hiram A. MATTHEWSON, Appellants, v. Judge Leo W. McCUNE, Appellee. UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Mary V. MITZEL, Appellant, v. Judge Leo W. McCUNE, Appellee. Mrs. Mary V. MITZEL and Mr. and Mrs. Hiram A. Matthewson, Appellants, v. William VANDERWALL et al., Appellees.
Nos. 20380, 20381, 20200.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 20, 1964.
Elliot Ross Buckley, New Orleans, La., for appellants. No. 20380:
Richard A. Thalheim, H. Charles Gaud-in, Gretna, La., for appellee. No. 20381:
Richard A. Thalheim, H. Charles Gaud-in, Gretna, La., Horace G. Pepper, Baton Rouge, La., for appellees. No. 20200:
Harry A. Burglass, Metairie, La., Richard A. Thalheim, H. Charles Gaudin, Richard A. Thalheim, Gaudin & Ed wards, Gretna, La., for defendant-appel-lee.
Before CAMERON, WISDOM and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
It is ordered that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered causes is hereby denied.
It is further ordered that the opinion filed November 27, 1963, is herewith recalled and in lieu of that opinion the following opinion is substituted:
The Court having carefully considered the record, briefs, and oral argument in these cases holds that the district court was not in error in dismissing the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The judgment is affirmed.