Mrs. Edna Latil Nichols v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company

310 F.2d 704
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided December 11, 1962·No. 19645_1·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant having failed to object to the argument now contended to having been prejudicial, and no plain error or abdication of function by the District Judge appearing, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Reid, 5th Cir., 1935, 76 F.2d 30; Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 5th Cir., 1954, 214 F.2d 290, cert. den. 1954, 348 U.S. 875, 75 S.Ct. 111, 99 L.Ed. 688; Ford v. United Gas Corp., 5th Cir., 1958, 254 F.2d 817, cert. den. 358 U.S. 824, 79 S.Ct. 40, 3 L.Ed.2d 64.

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

Mrs. Edna Latil Nichols v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, 310 F.2d 704 (5th Cir. 1962).

310 F.2d 704 (Mrs. Edna Latil Nichols v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hoover, Inc. v. McCullough Industries, Inc.
380 F.2d 798 (Fifth Circuit, 1967)