Krodel v. Houghtaling

Fourth Circuit

Krodel v. Houghtaling

427 F.2d 159, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8943

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 2, 1970

DocketNo. 13348

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 427 F.2d 159 (Krodel v. Houghtaling) 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

Krodel v. Houghtaling, 427 F.2d 159, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8943 (4th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Richard I. Krodel appeals from a judgment of the district court in favor of the defendants and denying appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Krodel seeks damages allegedly suffered by reason of fraud and deceit of the defendants in inducing him to purchase and operate under a franchise from Magic Fingers, Inc., a manufacturer and distributor of a bed vibrator with attached vending device. The case was tried by the district court without a jury, and at the conclusion of Krodel’s evidence the court found against Krodel and in favor of the defendants on the ground that Krodel had failed to carry his burden of proof of the alleged fraud and deceit. The court announced from the bench its findings of fact and conclusions of law.

We have carefully considered the record, briefs and oral argument and find no reversible error.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Richard I. Krodel appeals from a judgment of the district court in favor of the defendants and denying appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Krodel seeks damages allegedly suffered by reason of fraud and deceit of the defendants in inducing him to purchase and operate under a franchise from Magic Fingers, Inc., a manufacturer and distributor of a bed vibrator with attached vending device. The case was tried by the district court without a jury, and at the conclusion of Krodel’s evidence the court found against Krodel and in favor of the defendants on the ground that Krodel had failed to carry his burden of proof of the alleged fraud and deceit. The court announced from the bench its findings of fact and conclusions of law.

We have carefully considered the record, briefs and oral argument and find no reversible error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

427 F.2d 159, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krodel-v-houghtaling-ca4-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack