Matilda Mae Horrell, Administratrix of the Estate of David Franklin Horrell, Deceased v. Frank Seminsky

Third Circuit

Matilda Mae Horrell, Administratrix of the Estate of David Franklin Horrell, Deceased v. Frank Seminsky

467 F.2d 485

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedOctober 26, 1972

Docket71-2127

StatusPublished

This text of 467 F.2d 485 (Matilda Mae Horrell, Administratrix of the Estate of David Franklin Horrell, Deceased v. Frank Seminsky) 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

Matilda Mae Horrell, Administratrix of the Estate of David Franklin Horrell, Deceased v. Frank Seminsky, 467 F.2d 485 (3d Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

In this diversity wrongful death case the jury, in answer to an interrogatory “Was defendant, Frank Seminsky, negligent?” answered “No.” Judgment was entered accordingly. Plaintiff adminis-tratrix asserts on appeal that the case was submitted to the jury on an improper charge. We have examined each contention as to the charge in the light of the evidence and we find no error. In each particular complained of the charge as given was correct in light of the evidence. The omissions complained of, none of which amount to plain error, were not called to the trial court’s attention. See Rule 51, Fed.R.Civ.Proc. The judgment will be affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

In this diversity wrongful death case the jury, in answer to an interrogatory “Was defendant, Frank Seminsky, negligent?” answered “No.” Judgment was entered accordingly. Plaintiff adminis-tratrix asserts on appeal that the case was submitted to the jury on an improper charge. We have examined each contention as to the charge in the light of the evidence and we find no error. In each particular complained of the charge as given was correct in light of the evidence. The omissions complained of, none of which amount to plain error, were not called to the trial court’s attention. See Rule 51, Fed.R.Civ.Proc. The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

467 F.2d 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matilda-mae-horrell-administratrix-of-the-estate-of-david-franklin-ca3-1972.