Michael v. Reading Co.

Third Circuit

Michael v. Reading Co.

174 F.2d 828, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2286

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided May 9, 1949·No. No. 9877·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The sole question raised by the appellant in this case is whether there was sufficient evidence of the defendant’s negligence to support the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff. We agree with the district court, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge McGranery denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial, 82 F.Supp. 54, that the evidence was sufficient.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The sole question raised by the appellant in this case is whether there was sufficient evidence of the defendant’s negligence to support the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff. We agree with the district court, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge McGranery denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial, 82 F.Supp. 54, that the evidence was sufficient.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Michael v. Reading Co., 174 F.2d 828, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2286 (3d Cir. 1949).

Pincite

174 F.2d 828 (Michael v. Reading Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related