Helen M. Kiefer v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Helen M. Kiefer v. United States

255 F.2d 189, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 111, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4181

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 8, 1958

Docket14062

StatusPublished

This text of 255 F.2d 189 (Helen M. Kiefer v. United States) 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

Helen M. Kiefer v. United States, 255 F.2d 189, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 111, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4181 (D.C. Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In a former appeal in this suit for benefits under a National Service Life Insurance policy, we held that the District Court erred in barring the United States from the defense of fraud on the ground that the fraud was not relied upon in reinstating the deceased ex-serviceman’s policy. 1 Because of this error, the District Court did not consider whether the false representations were made with knowledge of their falsity and with intent to deceive. We therefore remanded the case “to afford the parties an opportunity to litigate that issue * *

Pursuant to the remand, a jury trial was had at which cross-motions for directed verdicts were filed at the conclusion of the evidence. The District Court granted the motion of the United States. We think the record fully supports this action.

Affirmed.

1

. United States v. Kiefer, 1955, 97 U.S. App.D.C. 101, 228 F.2d 448, 452, certio-rari denied 1956, 350 U.S. 933, 76 S.Ct. 305, 100 L.Ed. 815.

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

PER CURIAM.

In a former appeal in this suit for benefits under a National Service Life Insurance policy, we held that the District Court erred in barring the United States from the defense of fraud on the ground that the fraud was not relied upon in reinstating the deceased ex-serviceman’s policy. 1 Because of this error, the District Court did not consider whether the false representations were made with knowledge of their falsity and with intent to deceive. We therefore remanded the case “to afford the parties an opportunity to litigate that issue * *

Pursuant to the remand, a jury trial was had at which cross-motions for directed verdicts were filed at the conclusion of the evidence. The District Court granted the motion of the United States. We think the record fully supports this action.

Affirmed.

1

. United States v. Kiefer, 1955, 97 U.S. App.D.C. 101, 228 F.2d 448, 452, certio-rari denied 1956, 350 U.S. 933, 76 S.Ct. 305, 100 L.Ed. 815.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 F.2d 189, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 111, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helen-m-kiefer-v-united-states-cadc-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack