Salines v. Schwartz

Second Circuit

Salines v. Schwartz

290 F.2d 777

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 9, 1961

DocketNo. 375, Docket 26718

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 290 F.2d 777 (Salines v. Schwartz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Salines v. Schwartz, 290 F.2d 777 (2d Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment of the district court. The issues of defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s contributory negligence with respect to the collision between their automobiles at 73rd Street and First Avenue in Manhattan were resolved by the trial judge sitting without a jury. Judge MacMahon held that the traffic lights at the intersection were such that the defendant should have stopped at the corner. He found also that the plaintiff had a green light in his favor and was not intoxicated at the time of the accident. The trial judge saw and heard the witnesses and his conclusions as to their credibility should be accepted. We cannot say that his findings of fact were clearly erroneous. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A. On the contrary, the record supports the findings.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment of the district court. The issues of defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s contributory negligence with respect to the collision between their automobiles at 73rd Street and First Avenue in Manhattan were resolved by the trial judge sitting without a jury. Judge MacMahon held that the traffic lights at the intersection were such that the defendant should have stopped at the corner. He found also that the plaintiff had a green light in his favor and was not intoxicated at the time of the accident. The trial judge saw and heard the witnesses and his conclusions as to their credibility should be accepted. We cannot say that his findings of fact were clearly erroneous. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A. On the contrary, the record supports the findings.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 F.2d 777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salines-v-schwartz-ca2-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack