Southern Foundation Corporation (Intercounty Construction Corp.) v. Mary E. Hankins, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas A. Hankins, Deceased

D.C. Circuit

Southern Foundation Corporation (Intercounty Construction Corp.) v. Mary E. Hankins, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas A. Hankins, Deceased

326 F.2d 693, 117 U.S. App. D.C. 150

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 19, 1963

Docket17863_1

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 326 F.2d 693 (Southern Foundation Corporation (Intercounty Construction Corp.) v. Mary E. Hankins, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas A. Hankins, Deceased) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Southern Foundation Corporation (Intercounty Construction Corp.) v. Mary E. Hankins, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas A. Hankins, Deceased, 326 F.2d 693, 117 U.S. App. D.C. 150 (D.C. Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee [plaintiff], as administratrix of the estate of Thomas A. Hankins, eleven years of age when he died, sought to recover damages arising out of the boy’s death, allegedly caused by the negligence of the District of Columbia and three contractors engaged in work on a construction project. A verdict against appellants [defendants] having been returned by the jury, the trial court was presented with motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for reduction of the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial, based on the claims that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that the court erred in refusing to give certain instructions, and excessiveness of the verdict. All of these motions were denied by the trial court and this appeal followed.

Examination of the record convinces us that there was no error in any of the respects urged. Being in agreement with the opinion of the trial court in denying the several motions, 1 the judgment of the District Court must be and is

Affirmed.

1

. Hankins v. Southern Foundation Corp., 216 F.Supp. 554 (1963).

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellee [plaintiff], as administratrix of the estate of Thomas A. Hankins, eleven years of age when he died, sought to recover damages arising out of the boy’s death, allegedly caused by the negligence of the District of Columbia and three contractors engaged in work on a construction project. A verdict against appellants [defendants] having been returned by the jury, the trial court was presented with motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for reduction of the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial, based on the claims that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that the court erred in refusing to give certain instructions, and excessiveness of the verdict. All of these motions were denied by the trial court and this appeal followed.

Examination of the record convinces us that there was no error in any of the respects urged. Being in agreement with the opinion of the trial court in denying the several motions, 1 the judgment of the District Court must be and is

Affirmed.

1

. Hankins v. Southern Foundation Corp., 216 F.Supp. 554 (1963).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 F.2d 693, 117 U.S. App. D.C. 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-foundation-corporation-intercounty-construction-corp-v-mary-e-cadc-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack