Edward F. Houff v. George W. Biser
This text of 389 F.2d 388 (Edward F. Houff v. George W. Biser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In this diversity action, the codefend-ant held liable to the plaintiff for negligence in the operation of his motor vehicle, contends that he is entitled to a new trial in an effort to show liability on the part of the other codefendant, who was exonerated by the jury. Specifically, he assigns error in the instructions which were granted, and the refusal to grant others which he requested.
Under the applicable law of Maryland and the facts developed at the trial, we think the instructions, when taken as a whole, were unexceptional and that there was no error in refusing to grant the requested instructions.
The judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
389 F.2d 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-f-houff-v-george-w-biser-ca4-1968.