Elsie Pamela Williams, Through Her Next Friend, Elsie Williams, and Elsie Williams, in Her Individual Capacity v. Abraham Greenblatt

D.C. Circuit

Elsie Pamela Williams, Through Her Next Friend, Elsie Williams, and Elsie Williams, in Her Individual Capacity v. Abraham Greenblatt

272 F.2d 564, 106 U.S. App. D.C. 335, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3023

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 25, 1959

Docket15106

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 272 F.2d 564 (Elsie Pamela Williams, Through Her Next Friend, Elsie Williams, and Elsie Williams, in Her Individual Capacity v. Abraham Greenblatt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elsie Pamela Williams, Through Her Next Friend, Elsie Williams, and Elsie Williams, in Her Individual Capacity v. Abraham Greenblatt, 272 F.2d 564, 106 U.S. App. D.C. 335, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3023 (D.C. Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff child suddenly and without warning ran through a thick hedge bordering an alley just as the defendant’s car turned in from the street. She collided with the car which was almost instantly brought to a stop. Following the procedure authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b), 28 U.S.C.A., and a practice which we have previously approved, 1 the Dis *565 trict Judge allowed the jury to consider the controverted issues as to negligence and contributory negligence. After a plaintiff’s verdict had been returned, he granted the defendant’s motion for judgment n. o. v. We are satisfied that in such exercise of his legal discretion no error resulted. 2 3

Affirmed.

1

. We thus are able to test the judge’s determination against that of the jury ■without necessitating a new trial should we find his judgment erroneous. Shewmaker v. Capital Transit Co., 1944, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 102, 143 F.2d 142.

2

. Cf. Capital Transit Co. v. Gamble, 1947, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 57, 160 F.2d 283.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff child suddenly and without warning ran through a thick hedge bordering an alley just as the defendant’s car turned in from the street. She collided with the car which was almost instantly brought to a stop. Following the procedure authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b), 28 U.S.C.A., and a practice which we have previously approved, 1 the Dis *565 trict Judge allowed the jury to consider the controverted issues as to negligence and contributory negligence. After a plaintiff’s verdict had been returned, he granted the defendant’s motion for judgment n. o. v. We are satisfied that in such exercise of his legal discretion no error resulted. 2 3

Affirmed.

1

. We thus are able to test the judge’s determination against that of the jury ■without necessitating a new trial should we find his judgment erroneous. Shewmaker v. Capital Transit Co., 1944, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 102, 143 F.2d 142.

2

. Cf. Capital Transit Co. v. Gamble, 1947, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 57, 160 F.2d 283.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 F.2d 564, 106 U.S. App. D.C. 335, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elsie-pamela-williams-through-her-next-friend-elsie-williams-and-elsie-cadc-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack