C. Maxwell Brown v. United States

209 F.2d 260, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3157
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in C. Maxwell Brown v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 224 F.2d 845
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided December 8, 1953·No. 11980_1·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case came on to be heard upon .the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel;

And it appearing that the instructions given to the jury by the District Court taken as a whole are clear and correct under the applicable law, Lurding v. United States, 6 Cir., 179 F.2d 419; Battjes v. United States, 6 Cir., 172 F. 2d 1;

And it appearing that the District Court in denying the motion for new trial did not abuse its discretion, Quer-cia v. United States, 1 Cir., 70 F.2d 997, 999. Cf. Nicely v. United States, 6 Cir., 129 F.2d 357, 358; 12 Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure, 230-232;

And it appearing that the verdict of the jury is supported by substantial and *261 competent evidence and no reversible error appearing in the record;

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

C. Maxwell Brown v. United States, 209 F.2d 260, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3157 (6th Cir. 1953).

209 F.2d 260 (C. Maxwell Brown v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lurding v. United States
179 F.2d 419 (Sixth Circuit, 1950)
Battjes v. United States
172 F.2d 1 (Sixth Circuit, 1949)
Quercia v. United States
70 F.2d 997 (First Circuit, 1934)
Nicely v. United States
129 F.2d 357 (Sixth Circuit, 1942)