Lavinda McLeod v. Union Barge Line Company

Third Circuit

Lavinda McLeod v. Union Barge Line Company

189 F.2d 610, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3759

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 19, 1951

Docket10438_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 189 F.2d 610 (Lavinda McLeod v. Union Barge Line Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lavinda McLeod v. Union Barge Line Company, 189 F.2d 610, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3759 (3d Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves claim for damages for personal injuries. The claim is based on the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, for alleged negligence and upon admiralty law .for alleged unseaworthiness of the vessel on which the plaintiff was injured. The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict for the defendant. Judgment was entered thereon. The appellant alleges five points for reversal. Four of them are based upon what the judge charged or failed to charge. The fifth is based upon the refusal to award a new trial. No new or unsettled legal points are involved. We disagree with counsel that the trial judge misled the jury or charged it incorrectly on any of the points he raises. Nor do we think that the case is one where a determination by the jury should be upset.

The judgment of the District Court, 95 F.Supp. 336, will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves claim for damages for personal injuries. The claim is based on the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, for alleged negligence and upon admiralty law .for alleged unseaworthiness of the vessel on which the plaintiff was injured. The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict for the defendant. Judgment was entered thereon. The appellant alleges five points for reversal. Four of them are based upon what the judge charged or failed to charge. The fifth is based upon the refusal to award a new trial. No new or unsettled legal points are involved. We disagree with counsel that the trial judge misled the jury or charged it incorrectly on any of the points he raises. Nor do we think that the case is one where a determination by the jury should be upset.

The judgment of the District Court, 95 F.Supp. 336, will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 F.2d 610, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lavinda-mcleod-v-union-barge-line-company-ca3-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack