Southern Pacific Company v. Joe J. Jordan

Fifth Circuit

Southern Pacific Company v. Joe J. Jordan

395 F.2d 209

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 4, 1968

Docket24228_1

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 395 F.2d 209 (Southern Pacific Company v. Joe J. Jordan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Southern Pacific Company v. Joe J. Jordan, 395 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Recognizing, as we do, the limitations upon our power of review of jury verdicts, we are unable to do otherwise than affirm the judgment of the trial court in this railroad crossing damage suit. Viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the appellee, as we must, we cannot say that there was insufficient evidence to warrant submission of the case to the jury on the issue of discovered peril, as contended by the appellant. There is no merit in the appellant’s criticism of the trial court’s supplemental charge which appellant likens to the “Allen or dynamite” charge in criminal cases. Reading the charge as a whole, as we must, we find no reversible errors in the manner in which the case was submitted to the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Recognizing, as we do, the limitations upon our power of review of jury verdicts, we are unable to do otherwise than affirm the judgment of the trial court in this railroad crossing damage suit. Viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the appellee, as we must, we cannot say that there was insufficient evidence to warrant submission of the case to the jury on the issue of discovered peril, as contended by the appellant. There is no merit in the appellant’s criticism of the trial court’s supplemental charge which appellant likens to the “Allen or dynamite” charge in criminal cases. Reading the charge as a whole, as we must, we find no reversible errors in the manner in which the case was submitted to the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

395 F.2d 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-pacific-company-v-joe-j-jordan-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack