Ann Cherubini, Ad Prosequendum and as General Administratrix of the Estate of Peter John Cherubini, Deceased v. James Szilagyi and Arthur S. Carr

Third Circuit

Ann Cherubini, Ad Prosequendum and as General Administratrix of the Estate of Peter John Cherubini, Deceased v. James Szilagyi and Arthur S. Carr

271 F.2d 900, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3100

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedNovember 10, 1959

Docket12916_1

StatusPublished

This text of 271 F.2d 900 (Ann Cherubini, Ad Prosequendum and as General Administratrix of the Estate of Peter John Cherubini, Deceased v. James Szilagyi and Arthur S. Carr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ann Cherubini, Ad Prosequendum and as General Administratrix of the Estate of Peter John Cherubini, Deceased v. James Szilagyi and Arthur S. Carr, 271 F.2d 900, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3100 (3d Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant in a negligence case. The plaintiff’s intestate was hurt and subsequently died as a result of a collision with a car driven by defendant. There is no question of law involved. The only issues ai-e those of fact. The plaintiff argues that the defendant’s testimony should not be believed. This was a jury question; the jury answered it in defendant’s favor and the trial judge denied the motion for a new trial. There is no basis for reversal.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant in a negligence case. The plaintiff’s intestate was hurt and subsequently died as a result of a collision with a car driven by defendant. There is no question of law involved. The only issues ai-e those of fact. The plaintiff argues that the defendant’s testimony should not be believed. This was a jury question; the jury answered it in defendant’s favor and the trial judge denied the motion for a new trial. There is no basis for reversal.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 F.2d 900, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ann-cherubini-ad-prosequendum-and-as-general-administratrix-of-the-estate-ca3-1959.