Parelman v. Parelman

D.C. Circuit

Parelman v. Parelman

210 F.2d 29, 93 U.S. App. D.C. 361

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 4, 1954

Docket11732

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 210 F.2d 29 (Parelman v. Parelman) 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

Parelman v. Parelman, 210 F.2d 29, 93 U.S. App. D.C. 361 (D.C. Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this suit a mother charged her son with negligence which she alleged was the proximate cause of personal injuries sustained by her, for which she sought damages in the sum of $25,000. The mother complains on appeal that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the defendant at the close of her counsel’s opening statement to the jury.

We think the judge correctly concluded, from what the plaintiff’s counsel said he expected to prove, that a cause of action had not been stated.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this suit a mother charged her son with negligence which she alleged was the proximate cause of personal injuries sustained by her, for which she sought damages in the sum of $25,000. The mother complains on appeal that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the defendant at the close of her counsel’s opening statement to the jury.

We think the judge correctly concluded, from what the plaintiff’s counsel said he expected to prove, that a cause of action had not been stated.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 F.2d 29, 93 U.S. App. D.C. 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parelman-v-parelman-cadc-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack