Martin v. Staples

D.C. Circuit

Martin v. Staples

164 F.2d 106, 82 U.S. App. D.C. 370

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 10, 1947

DocketNo. 9476

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 164 F.2d 106 (Martin v. Staples) 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

Martin v. Staples, 164 F.2d 106, 82 U.S. App. D.C. 370 (D.C. Cir. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was taken from a jury’s verdict before judgment had been entered. It is therefore premature and must be dismissed. St. Louis Amusement Co. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 8 Cir., 156 F.2d 400; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 58, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. However, we have examined the record and find that the judgment would be affirmed if it were before us. Appellant is the beneficiary of a will which has been denied probate because the jury found that the will had been procured by undue influence, duress, or coercion. Appellant, conceding .that thé definitions of undue influence, duress and coercion in the instructions of the trial judge to the jury were correct, urges that there was no evidence to support the jury’s verdict. ■ We find that the evidence was ample.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was taken from a jury’s verdict before judgment had been entered. It is therefore premature and must be dismissed. St. Louis Amusement Co. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 8 Cir., 156 F.2d 400; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 58, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. However, we have examined the record and find that the judgment would be affirmed if it were before us. Appellant is the beneficiary of a will which has been denied probate because the jury found that the will had been procured by undue influence, duress, or coercion. Appellant, conceding .that thé definitions of undue influence, duress and coercion in the instructions of the trial judge to the jury were correct, urges that there was no evidence to support the jury’s verdict. ■ We find that the evidence was ample.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 F.2d 106, 82 U.S. App. D.C. 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-staples-cadc-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack