Martha Berman v. Donald E. Anderson

D.C. Circuit

Martha Berman v. Donald E. Anderson

232 F.2d 56, 98 U.S. App. D.C. 56

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 1956

Docket12681_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 232 F.2d 56 (Martha Berman v. Donald E. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martha Berman v. Donald E. Anderson, 232 F.2d 56, 98 U.S. App. D.C. 56 (D.C. Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellees’ car struck appellants as they were crossing from the east to. the west, side of Wisconsin Avenue north of 34th Street. In seeking reversal of a judgment pursuant to the jury’s verdict, in appellees’ favor, appellants say that, all the. competent evidence showed that, there was no marked cross-walk at the-intersection of Wisconsin and 34th, and! that the trial court erred in submitting-that issue to the jury. We think, however, that evidence offered by appellees; to show the existence of the cross-walk was competent, and presented a conflict which the jury was properly permitted to resolve.

Appellants also complain of the prejudicial nature of the closing argument for appellees with respect to a claimed item of damage. Counsel remarked that appellants were trying to. “pile it on,” and added, “How small?' How cheap? How cheap can you get?”' While the propriety of these remarks is. questionable, we do not consider them, in the particular circumstances of this case, to have been prejudicial.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellees’ car struck appellants as they were crossing from the east to. the west, side of Wisconsin Avenue north of 34th Street. In seeking reversal of a judgment pursuant to the jury’s verdict, in appellees’ favor, appellants say that, all the. competent evidence showed that, there was no marked cross-walk at the-intersection of Wisconsin and 34th, and! that the trial court erred in submitting-that issue to the jury. We think, however, that evidence offered by appellees; to show the existence of the cross-walk was competent, and presented a conflict which the jury was properly permitted to resolve.

Appellants also complain of the prejudicial nature of the closing argument for appellees with respect to a claimed item of damage. Counsel remarked that appellants were trying to. “pile it on,” and added, “How small?' How cheap? How cheap can you get?”' While the propriety of these remarks is. questionable, we do not consider them, in the particular circumstances of this case, to have been prejudicial.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 F.2d 56, 98 U.S. App. D.C. 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martha-berman-v-donald-e-anderson-cadc-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack