Marion C. Sherman v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company

Fifth Circuit

Marion C. Sherman v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company

412 F.2d 322

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 16, 1969

Docket27150

StatusPublished

This text of 412 F.2d 322 (Marion C. Sherman v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marion C. Sherman v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, 412 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument. Accordingly, we have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties of this fact in writing. See Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court and Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804.

This diversity of citizenship case arose out of a collision between an automobile driven by Mrs. Sherman and a truck owned by Southern Bell Telephone and operated by one of its employees in the course of his employment. The jury awarded Mrs. Sherman $40,000. Southern Bell complains in this appeal that the district court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict in its favor. We have reviewed the record and find that the evidence was of “such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions”. The Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 5 Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 365. We hold, therefore, that the motions were properly denied and that the case was properly submitted to the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

We have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument. Accordingly, we have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties of this fact in writing. See Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court and Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804.

This diversity of citizenship case arose out of a collision between an automobile driven by Mrs. Sherman and a truck owned by Southern Bell Telephone and operated by one of its employees in the course of his employment. The jury awarded Mrs. Sherman $40,000. Southern Bell complains in this appeal that the district court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict in its favor. We have reviewed the record and find that the evidence was of “such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions”. The Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 5 Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 365. We hold, therefore, that the motions were properly denied and that the case was properly submitted to the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

412 F.2d 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marion-c-sherman-v-southern-bell-telephone-and-telegraph-company-ca5-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack