Paul J. Heriegel v. Reading Company

Third Circuit

Paul J. Heriegel v. Reading Company

220 F.2d 187, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3316

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 10, 1955

Docket11383_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 F.2d 187 (Paul J. Heriegel v. Reading Company) 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

Paul J. Heriegel v. Reading Company, 220 F.2d 187, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3316 (3d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The pattern of improper trial conduct on the part of appellee’s attorney permeates this Safety Appliance Act 1 case much as in Straub v. Reading Company, 3 Cir., 220 F.2d 177 and in Zientek v. Reading Company, 3 Cir., 220 F.2d 183, both decided by us today. The important difference is that here the trial judge did something effective about it by controlling the situations as they arose, by admonishing counsel, by instructing the jury. The result was that finally as the district judge stated in his opinion on the motion for a new trial, “The question is not whether the plaintiff’s counsel should be taken to task for improprieties on his part but whether the ends of justice will be served by ordering a new trial. I do not think they will.”

We are satisfied from the record that the denial of the motion for a new trial was within the discretion of the trial judge. See Rule 61, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

1

. 45 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.

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

PER CURIAM.

The pattern of improper trial conduct on the part of appellee’s attorney permeates this Safety Appliance Act 1 case much as in Straub v. Reading Company, 3 Cir., 220 F.2d 177 and in Zientek v. Reading Company, 3 Cir., 220 F.2d 183, both decided by us today. The important difference is that here the trial judge did something effective about it by controlling the situations as they arose, by admonishing counsel, by instructing the jury. The result was that finally as the district judge stated in his opinion on the motion for a new trial, “The question is not whether the plaintiff’s counsel should be taken to task for improprieties on his part but whether the ends of justice will be served by ordering a new trial. I do not think they will.”

We are satisfied from the record that the denial of the motion for a new trial was within the discretion of the trial judge. See Rule 61, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

1

. 45 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 F.2d 187, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-j-heriegel-v-reading-company-ca3-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack