Charles S. Woodruff v. Schering Corporation and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and Globe Indemnity Co.

Fifth Circuit

Charles S. Woodruff v. Schering Corporation and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and Globe Indemnity Co.

324 F.2d 958

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided January 27, 1964·No. 20617·Published

Opinion

*959 PER curiam:.

The unsuccessful plaintiff, recognizing the adequacy of the record to support the jury verdict against him, seeks a reversal because of alleged erroneous instructions. We have carefully examined the Court’s instructions and find them free from prejudicial error.

After a hard fought trial, the jury, with ample evidence and the opportunity to observe the witnesses, resolved the issues of negligence in favor of defendant. Appellant’s contentions are without merit. The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

*959 PER curiam:.

The unsuccessful plaintiff, recognizing the adequacy of the record to support the jury verdict against him, seeks a reversal because of alleged erroneous instructions. We have carefully examined the Court’s instructions and find them free from prejudicial error.

After a hard fought trial, the jury, with ample evidence and the opportunity to observe the witnesses, resolved the issues of negligence in favor of defendant. Appellant’s contentions are without merit. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Charles S. Woodruff v. Schering Corporation and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and Globe Indemnity Co., 324 F.2d 958 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

324 F.2d 958 (Charles S. Woodruff v. Schering Corporation and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and Globe Indemnity Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.