Slabinski v. Lippincott

Third Circuit

Slabinski v. Lippincott

170 F.2d 1022

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedNovember 26, 1948

DocketNo. 9659

StatusPublished

This text of 170 F.2d 1022 (Slabinski v. Lippincott) 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

Slabinski v. Lippincott, 170 F.2d 1022 (3d Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Careful consideration of the points raised by the defendant has convinced us that the question of the plaintiff’s alleged contributory negligence was a matter for the jury to decide. We are of the opinion also that the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff was not capricious, was not against the credible evidence and was in accordance with the adequate charge of the trial court.

Accordingly the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Careful consideration of the points raised by the defendant has convinced us that the question of the plaintiff’s alleged contributory negligence was a matter for the jury to decide. We are of the opinion also that the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff was not capricious, was not against the credible evidence and was in accordance with the adequate charge of the trial court.

Accordingly the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 F.2d 1022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slabinski-v-lippincott-ca3-1948.