Feltman v. Norris

D.C. Circuit

Feltman v. Norris

172 F.2d 289, 84 U.S. App. D.C. 295

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 31, 1949

DocketNo. 9810

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 172 F.2d 289 (Feltman v. Norris) 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

Feltman v. Norris, 172 F.2d 289, 84 U.S. App. D.C. 295 (D.C. Cir. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The sole ground of appeal is alleged error of the District Court in instructing the jury. Appellant complains of the giving of one instruction and the failure to give another.

Appellant’s first point, which he labels an erroneous instruction, concerns a traffic regulation, which the trial court allowed opposing counsel to read to the jury at the completion of the charge to the jury. In so doing, the court referred to the regulation as having been admitted in evidence. If the alleged error be regarded as dealing with the admission of evidence, so much of the record of the proceeding' below as is presented to us upon the appeal fails to indicate timely objection. If appellant’s point be regarded as it is stated in his statement of points, as directed to an error in the court’s charge, the objection came too late to comply with Rule 51 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.¹ It was made after the jury had retired.

As to the failure to give a requested instruction, we do not find that proper objection was made, as required by Rule 51, supra.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The sole ground of appeal is alleged error of the District Court in instructing the jury. Appellant complains of the giving of one instruction and the failure to give another.

Appellant’s first point, which he labels an erroneous instruction, concerns a traffic regulation, which the trial court allowed opposing counsel to read to the jury at the completion of the charge to the jury. In so doing, the court referred to the regulation as having been admitted in evidence. If the alleged error be regarded as dealing with the admission of evidence, so much of the record of the proceeding' below as is presented to us upon the appeal fails to indicate timely objection. If appellant’s point be regarded as it is stated in his statement of points, as directed to an error in the court’s charge, the objection came too late to comply with Rule 51 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.¹ It was made after the jury had retired.

As to the failure to give a requested instruction, we do not find that proper objection was made, as required by Rule 51, supra.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 F.2d 289, 84 U.S. App. D.C. 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feltman-v-norris-cadc-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack