E. F. Hutton Co. v. Cook

1 Citing case

  1. Mead Corp. v. Stuart Hall Co., Inc.

    679 F. Supp. 1446 (S.D. Ohio 1987)   Cited 5 times
    Interpreting 5th Circuit case law

    As the Supreme Court noted in Kerotest Manufacturing Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., 342 U.S. 180, 185 [ 72 S.Ct. 219, 222, 96 L.Ed. 200] (1952), the declaratory judgment plaintiff "is given an equal start in the race to the courthouse, not a headstart." While the court does not encourage races to the courthouse, neither is it blind to the realities that they occur, and no purpose would be served in punishing the winner simply because he won. A different result might well follow if the declaratory judgment plaintiff had affirmatively induced the substantive action plaintiff to delay filing suit so that it might gain precedence in time, Mission Insurance, 706 F.2d 599; E.F. Hutton Co. v. Cook, 292 F. Supp. 409 (S.D.Tex. 1968), but that is not the case here. Plaintiff sent a letter, dated July 28, 1986, which plaintiff argues makes the Mission Insurance and Hutton cases applicable.