Harold F. Cochran v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company

Third Circuit

Harold F. Cochran v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company

340 F.2d 709, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6719

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 28, 1965

Docket14937

StatusPublished

This text of 340 F.2d 709 (Harold F. Cochran v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harold F. Cochran v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, 340 F.2d 709, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6719 (3d Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

There is sufficient evidence in the case at bar to justify the conclusion that the negligence of the defendant played a part in causing the plaintiff’s injury. The defendant-appellant argues in this court for the first time that a new trial should be granted because the verdict was against the weight of the medical evidence. Since this issue was not raised in the court below, we shall not consider it here. United States v. Ivy Hall Apartments, Inc., 310 F.2d 5, 10 (3 Cir. 1962). The judgment will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

There is sufficient evidence in the case at bar to justify the conclusion that the negligence of the defendant played a part in causing the plaintiff’s injury. The defendant-appellant argues in this court for the first time that a new trial should be granted because the verdict was against the weight of the medical evidence. Since this issue was not raised in the court below, we shall not consider it here. United States v. Ivy Hall Apartments, Inc., 310 F.2d 5, 10 (3 Cir. 1962). The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 F.2d 709, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harold-f-cochran-v-baltimore-ohio-railroad-company-ca3-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack