Employers Casualty Company v. August E. Dupaquier

338 F.2d 336, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3828
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided November 20, 1964·No. 21232·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Such inconsistencies as existed between the answer to the special interrogatory and the jury’s general verdict were apparent in ample time for appellant to have moved for resubmission to the jury. Upon failure of the party to move the Court to resubmit the case, it was not error for the Court to reconcile the answer with the verdict as it did. See Jefferson v. Taiyo Katun, 5 Cir. 1962, 310 F.2d 582. 5 Moore, Fed. Prac. ¶ 49.04 at p. 2211.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Employers Casualty Company v. August E. Dupaquier, 338 F.2d 336, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3828 (5th Cir. 1964).

338 F.2d 336 (Employers Casualty Company v. August E. Dupaquier) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Los Angeles Nut House v. Holiday Hardware Corp.
825 F.2d 1351 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)
Bill Mercer v. Long Mfg. N. C., Inc.
671 F.2d 946 (Fifth Circuit, 1982)
McCue v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
358 N.E.2d 799 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1976)
City of Homer v. Land's End Marine
459 P.2d 475 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1969)
Allen v. D'Ercole Construction Co.
244 A.2d 864 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1968)
Thomas D. Cundiff v. Virginia Lee Washburn
393 F.2d 505 (Seventh Circuit, 1968)