Court Opinion

ID: 9457876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:36:08.591801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:32.924360
License: Public Domain

OAKES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I would adhere to the decision of the court before rehearing, slip op. 5427, 5440-41, in holding that Kline’s counterclaim under the July 16 assignment of the option on the Tampa land need not be retried. As the court originally pointed out, Kline sought only equitable relief with respect to the July 16 assignment and the issue upon which the district Judge disposed of the issue of validity of the assignment — the absence of legal delivery — is “clearly unique” to that issue. There is no reason why this issue could not properly be severed under Rule 42 (b), Fed.R.Civ.P. On the merits there is no basis for disagreeing with the district court’s determination that a legally effective delivery of the option had never been made. In my view, the district judge’s finding to this effect is and should be the law of the case. Therefore, to so much of the opinion as would now permit the assignment issue to go to the jury on remand, I dissent.