Queen Insurance Co. of America v. Wineman

Sixth Circuit

Queen Insurance Co. of America v. Wineman

95 F.2d 1014, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4327

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 10, 1938

DocketNo. 7455

StatusPublished

This text of 95 F.2d 1014 (Queen Insurance Co. of America v. Wineman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Queen Insurance Co. of America v. Wineman, 95 F.2d 1014, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4327 (6th Cir. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It being the opinion of . the court that there was substantial evidence upon which to submit to the jury-an issue of fact as to whether or not the property insured by the policy upon which suit was brought was struck by lightning within the coverage of the policy, and it being further the opinion of the court that the excluded evidence was not an official record, nor that it was made admissible by the Act of June 20, 1936, c. 640, § 1, 49 Stat. 1561 (T. 28, U.S.C., § 695, 28 U.S.C.A. § 695), enacted since the trial, and it being further the opinion of the court that the defendant’s theory of applicable depreciation was substantially submitted to the decision of the jury, and there being no other prejudicial error in the case, the judgment below is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

It being the opinion of . the court that there was substantial evidence upon which to submit to the jury-an issue of fact as to whether or not the property insured by the policy upon which suit was brought was struck by lightning within the coverage of the policy, and it being further the opinion of the court that the excluded evidence was not an official record, nor that it was made admissible by the Act of June 20, 1936, c. 640, § 1, 49 Stat. 1561 (T. 28, U.S.C., § 695, 28 U.S.C.A. § 695), enacted since the trial, and it being further the opinion of the court that the defendant’s theory of applicable depreciation was substantially submitted to the decision of the jury, and there being no other prejudicial error in the case, the judgment below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 F.2d 1014, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/queen-insurance-co-of-america-v-wineman-ca6-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack