Tuengel v. City of Sitka

Ninth Circuit

Tuengel v. City of Sitka

245 F.2d 61, 17 Alaska 171

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 10, 1957

DocketNo. 15200

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 F.2d 61 (Tuengel v. City of Sitka) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tuengel v. City of Sitka, 245 F.2d 61, 17 Alaska 171 (9th Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action for damages for alleged personal injuries was tried before a jury, who found for defendants and against plaintiff Tuengel. Plaintiff then appealed.

The record shows these facts. On November 17, 1951, Tuengel, who is a barber, called at the Sitka Community Hospital at the request of one Cresa. The latter desired Tuengel to cut his hair. A nurse on duty told Tuengel that Cresa’s room was the third on the left, which direction, repeated by Tuengel, was correct.

[173]*173Instead of knocking at the door indicated, Tuengel opened another door marked “Basement” and fell down a well lighted stairway.

The case was fairly and impartially tried. The verdict was in accordance with the evidence. There is no indication that the jury ignored material evidence. The instructions were full and correct and none was in error. Under the statutes of Alaska, record of conviction of Tuengel for criminal contempt for jury tampering was admissible for what effect it might be given in affecting the credibility of plaintiff. Section 58-4 — 61, A.C.L.A.1949; In re Ashland, 4 Alaska 486 (Cushman, J., 1912). No other alleged error appears to be of substance.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action for damages for alleged personal injuries was tried before a jury, who found for defendants and against plaintiff Tuengel. Plaintiff then appealed.

The record shows these facts. On November 17, 1951, Tuengel, who is a barber, called at the Sitka Community Hospital at the request of one Cresa. The latter desired Tuengel to cut his hair. A nurse on duty told Tuengel that Cresa’s room was the third on the left, which direction, repeated by Tuengel, was correct.

[173]*173Instead of knocking at the door indicated, Tuengel opened another door marked “Basement” and fell down a well lighted stairway.

The case was fairly and impartially tried. The verdict was in accordance with the evidence. There is no indication that the jury ignored material evidence. The instructions were full and correct and none was in error. Under the statutes of Alaska, record of conviction of Tuengel for criminal contempt for jury tampering was admissible for what effect it might be given in affecting the credibility of plaintiff. Section 58-4 — 61, A.C.L.A.1949; In re Ashland, 4 Alaska 486 (Cushman, J., 1912). No other alleged error appears to be of substance.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 F.2d 61, 17 Alaska 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuengel-v-city-of-sitka-ca9-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack