Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Mrs. Ammon Brown Humphries

Fifth Circuit

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Mrs. Ammon Brown Humphries

301 F.2d 314, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5254

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 27, 1962

Docket19124_1

StatusPublished

This text of 301 F.2d 314 (Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Mrs. Ammon Brown Humphries) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Mrs. Ammon Brown Humphries, 301 F.2d 314, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5254 (5th Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant contends that the trial court erred in not granting defendant’s motions for a directed verdict and for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellant also contends that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial based on the jury’s verdict having been manifestly contrary to justice and based also on alleged misconduct of a juror. The appellant’s principal argument is that the facts do not support the theory of last clear chance on which the plaintiff relied for recovery.

After careful consideration of the record, the briefs, and oral .argument, this Court is of the opinion that there was no error in the trial judge’s denial of the motions.

Judgment is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant contends that the trial court erred in not granting defendant’s motions for a directed verdict and for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellant also contends that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial based on the jury’s verdict having been manifestly contrary to justice and based also on alleged misconduct of a juror. The appellant’s principal argument is that the facts do not support the theory of last clear chance on which the plaintiff relied for recovery.

After careful consideration of the record, the briefs, and oral .argument, this Court is of the opinion that there was no error in the trial judge’s denial of the motions.

Judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 F.2d 314, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/certain-underwriters-at-lloyds-london-v-mrs-ammon-brown-humphries-ca5-1962.