The Saginaw County Agricultural Society v. Mary Connell

Sixth Circuit

The Saginaw County Agricultural Society v. Mary Connell

254 F.2d 589, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4049

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 19, 1958

Docket13359

StatusPublished

This text of 254 F.2d 589 (The Saginaw County Agricultural Society v. Mary Connell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Saginaw County Agricultural Society v. Mary Connell, 254 F.2d 589, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4049 (6th Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee received a verdict for damages for personal injuries suffered as the result of a fire in a county fair building. The District Court submitted to the jury for determination the question whether appellant had complied with the State law and regulations regarding fire extinguishers ; whether the proximate cause of appellee’s injuries was appellant’s failure to comply with such law; and whether appellee was guilty of contributory negligence. The jury resolved all of these questions in appellee’s favor. These were questions of fact. The verdict of the jury was sustained by the evidence. We find no error in the conduct of the trial or in the refusal of the Court to grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellee received a verdict for damages for personal injuries suffered as the result of a fire in a county fair building. The District Court submitted to the jury for determination the question whether appellant had complied with the State law and regulations regarding fire extinguishers ; whether the proximate cause of appellee’s injuries was appellant’s failure to comply with such law; and whether appellee was guilty of contributory negligence. The jury resolved all of these questions in appellee’s favor. These were questions of fact. The verdict of the jury was sustained by the evidence. We find no error in the conduct of the trial or in the refusal of the Court to grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 F.2d 589, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-saginaw-county-agricultural-society-v-mary-connell-ca6-1958.