Miller v. Potomac Electric Power Co.

D.C. Circuit

Miller v. Potomac Electric Power Co.

192 F.2d 614, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 27

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 15, 1951

Docket10768_1

StatusPublished

This text of 192 F.2d 614 (Miller v. Potomac Electric Power Co.) 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

Miller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 192 F.2d 614, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 27 (D.C. Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from the negligence of an employee of defendant, Potomac Electric Power Company. The jury having found for defendant, plaintiff appeals, contending that there was error in the trial judge’s charge, in the admission of certain evidence, and in the conduct of the trial. We have carefully reviewed the record of the proceedings in the District Court, and have concluded that any error committed is not such, in view of the unsubstantial nature of plaintiff’s evidence on the issue of negligence, as to justify reversal. See LeVonas v. Acme Paper Board Co., 184 Md. 16, 40 A.2d 43; Williams v. United Men’s Shop, 317 Mass. 319, 58 N.E.2d 2.

The judgment of the District Court will accordingly be

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from the negligence of an employee of defendant, Potomac Electric Power Company. The jury having found for defendant, plaintiff appeals, contending that there was error in the trial judge’s charge, in the admission of certain evidence, and in the conduct of the trial. We have carefully reviewed the record of the proceedings in the District Court, and have concluded that any error committed is not such, in view of the unsubstantial nature of plaintiff’s evidence on the issue of negligence, as to justify reversal. See LeVonas v. Acme Paper Board Co., 184 Md. 16, 40 A.2d 43; Williams v. United Men’s Shop, 317 Mass. 319, 58 N.E.2d 2.

The judgment of the District Court will accordingly be

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 F.2d 614, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-potomac-electric-power-co-cadc-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack