Steel Transportation Company v. Richard Krotek, by Theresa Krotek, His Next Friend

181 F.2d 191, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2589
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided April 13, 1950·No. 11037·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case came on to be heard on the briefs and record and oral argument of counsel;

And it appearing that the principal questions presented arise out of issues of fact which were properly presented to the jury; Kerns v. Lewis, 249 Mich. 27, 30, 227 N. W. 727; Breger v. Feigenson Bros. Co., 264 Mich. 37, 41, 249 N.W. 493; Phillips v. Fotheringham, 277 Mich. 566, 571, 269 N. W. 600; Reitenga v. Kalamazoo Creamery Co., 288 Mich. 161, 165, 284 N.W. 683; and that the verdict is supported by substantial evidence;

And it appearing that the District Court correctly charged the jury upon the applicable law, and that no error is assigned to the charge;

And no reversible error appearing in the record:

It is ordered that the judgment be, and it hereby is, affirmed.

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

Steel Transportation Company v. Richard Krotek, by Theresa Krotek, His Next Friend, 181 F.2d 191, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2589 (6th Cir. 1950).

181 F.2d 191 (Steel Transportation Company v. Richard Krotek, by Theresa Krotek, His Next Friend) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kerns v. Lewis
227 N.W. 727 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1929)
Breger v. Feigenson Brothers Co.
249 N.W. 493 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1933)
Reitenga v. Kalamazoo Creamery Co.
284 N.W. 683 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1939)
Phillips v. Fotheringham
269 N.W. 600 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1936)