Paul J. Rudolchick v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company, a Corporation

Third Circuit

Paul J. Rudolchick v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company, a Corporation

283 F.2d 255

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedNovember 29, 1960

Docket13322

StatusPublished

This text of 283 F.2d 255 (Paul J. Rudolchick v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company, a Corporation) 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. Rudolchick v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company, a Corporation, 283 F.2d 255 (3d Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Examination of plaintiff’s testimony, the only liability evidence offered, confirms the holding of Judge McIIvaine in the district court, that it does not present a jury question as to the negligence of the defendant. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 1957, 352 U.S. 500, 506, 77 S.Ct. 443, 1 L.Ed.2d 493; Zegan v. Central Railroad of New Jersey, 3 Cir., 1959, 266 F.2d 101, 104.

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.

Examination of plaintiff’s testimony, the only liability evidence offered, confirms the holding of Judge McIIvaine in the district court, that it does not present a jury question as to the negligence of the defendant. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 1957, 352 U.S. 500, 506, 77 S.Ct. 443, 1 L.Ed.2d 493; Zegan v. Central Railroad of New Jersey, 3 Cir., 1959, 266 F.2d 101, 104.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 F.2d 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-j-rudolchick-v-pittsburgh-lake-erie-railroad-company-a-ca3-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack