Jody W. Rhodes and Grady S. Rhodes, D/B/A Rhodes Brothers v. Clyde F. Boland, as Administrator of the Estate of Donald W. Land, Deceased

Fourth Circuit

Jody W. Rhodes and Grady S. Rhodes, D/B/A Rhodes Brothers v. Clyde F. Boland, as Administrator of the Estate of Donald W. Land, Deceased

237 F.2d 492

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 16, 1956

Docket7260

StatusPublished

This text of 237 F.2d 492 (Jody W. Rhodes and Grady S. Rhodes, D/B/A Rhodes Brothers v. Clyde F. Boland, as Administrator of the Estate of Donald W. Land, Deceased) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jody W. Rhodes and Grady S. Rhodes, D/B/A Rhodes Brothers v. Clyde F. Boland, as Administrator of the Estate of Donald W. Land, Deceased, 237 F.2d 492 (4th Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in a personal injury case. The questions involved are pure questions of fact and the only question presented by the appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury. When the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as it must be on motion by ' defendant for directed verdict, there can be no question as to its sufficiency, for ■ 'reasons adequately stated by the District Judge' in his order denying motion for judgment n. o. v. or in the alternative for a new trial.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in a personal injury case. The questions involved are pure questions of fact and the only question presented by the appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury. When the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as it must be on motion by ' defendant for directed verdict, there can be no question as to its sufficiency, for ■ 'reasons adequately stated by the District Judge' in his order denying motion for judgment n. o. v. or in the alternative for a new trial.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 F.2d 492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jody-w-rhodes-and-grady-s-rhodes-dba-rhodes-brothers-v-clyde-f-ca4-1956.