Black & Agard v. Sinzinger

Sixth Circuit

Black & Agard v. Sinzinger

145 F.2d 469, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2547

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 1944

DocketNo. 9774

StatusPublished

This text of 145 F.2d 469 (Black & Agard v. Sinzinger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Black & Agard v. Sinzinger, 145 F.2d 469, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2547 (6th Cir. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case came on to be heard on the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel. And it appearing that appellants’ principal contention is that the District Court erred in submitting to the jury ‘the evidence as to injuries sustained by the appellee five days subsequent to the automobile accident out of which the action arose; and it appearing that the trial court correctly charged the jury upon the law applicable to the case; and it appearing that no interrogatories were presented to the jury upon the issue whether the injuries suffered by the appellee in falling down stairs were the direct and proximate result of the automobile collision, so, that this court is unable to determine whether or not the jury, in its award of damages, took into consideration the subsequent injuries; and it appearing that the verdict is supported by substantial evidence: It is ordered that the judgment be, and it hereby is, affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case came on to be heard on the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel. And it appearing that appellants’ principal contention is that the District Court erred in submitting to the jury ‘the evidence as to injuries sustained by the appellee five days subsequent to the automobile accident out of which the action arose; and it appearing that the trial court correctly charged the jury upon the law applicable to the case; and it appearing that no interrogatories were presented to the jury upon the issue whether the injuries suffered by the appellee in falling down stairs were the direct and proximate result of the automobile collision, so, that this court is unable to determine whether or not the jury, in its award of damages, took into consideration the subsequent injuries; and it appearing that the verdict is supported by substantial evidence: It is ordered that the judgment be, and it hereby is, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 F.2d 469, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/black-agard-v-sinzinger-ca6-1944.