Hirsch v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.

299 F.2d 792
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedMarch 6, 1962
DocketNo. 245, Docket 27302
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 299 F.2d 792 (Hirsch v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hirsch v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 299 F.2d 792 (2d Cir. 1962).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After reversal of a dismissal on motion because of an earlier settlement agreement which plaintiff challenged as obtained by misrepresentation, 258 F.2d 44 (2 Cir.1958), a mistrial, and reversal of a direction of a defendant’s verdict, 288 F. 2d 685 (2 Cir.1961), all in proceedings before other judges below, plaintiff has now had the jury determination to which we have twice held him to be entitled. The jury found that his challenge to the settlement was unfounded. Plaintiff, who acted pro se, offered no objection to the charge, and we find no error in the conduct of the trial. Plaintiff’s attacks upon the integrity of the court reporters and others are incredible and ought not have been made.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Eugen Hirsch v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company
299 F.2d 792 (Second Circuit, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
299 F.2d 792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirsch-v-archer-daniels-midland-co-ca2-1962.