Koblitz v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

Second Circuit

Koblitz v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

266 F.2d 320, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3963

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 28, 1959

DocketNo. 180, Docket 25331

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 F.2d 320 (Koblitz v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad) 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

Koblitz v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 266 F.2d 320, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3963 (2d Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm on the opinion of Judge Bryan, reported at 164 F.Supp. 367. In addition to the estoppel of the former judgment we find that the basic point now argued as to whether the source of appellant’s claim is derivative or direct, was determined in the appeal to this Court from the adverse judgment in the prior action. Rieser v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 2 Cir., 1955, 228 F.2d 563. Thus appellant is bound not only by a direct but also by a collateral estoppel.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm on the opinion of Judge Bryan, reported at 164 F.Supp. 367. In addition to the estoppel of the former judgment we find that the basic point now argued as to whether the source of appellant’s claim is derivative or direct, was determined in the appeal to this Court from the adverse judgment in the prior action. Rieser v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 2 Cir., 1955, 228 F.2d 563. Thus appellant is bound not only by a direct but also by a collateral estoppel.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 F.2d 320, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3963, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koblitz-v-baltimore-ohio-railroad-ca2-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack