Salzano v. Hirtz

Second Circuit

Salzano v. Hirtz

353 F.2d 536

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided November 22, 1965·No. No. 138, Docket 29728·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an ordinary, run of the mill personal injury action. The parties differ on the place and manner of the accident, and on the causal relationship and extent of appellant’s injuries. Conflicting testimony was presented to the jury; there was substantial evidence to support the result that the jury reached.

Appellant claims numerous other trial errors. His contentions are either insubstantial or incorrect.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an ordinary, run of the mill personal injury action. The parties differ on the place and manner of the accident, and on the causal relationship and extent of appellant’s injuries. Conflicting testimony was presented to the jury; there was substantial evidence to support the result that the jury reached.

Appellant claims numerous other trial errors. His contentions are either insubstantial or incorrect.

Affirmed.

Salzano v. Hirtz, 353 F.2d 536 (2d Cir. 1965).

Pincite

353 F.2d 536 (Salzano v. Hirtz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related