United States v. Christenson

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Christenson

82 F.2d 311, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 2976

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 27, 1936

DocketNo. 7904

StatusPublished

This text of 82 F.2d 311 (United States v. Christenson) 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

United States v. Christenson, 82 F.2d 311, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 2976 (9th Cir. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff upon a policy of war risk insurance. The case was tried without a jury. The evidence tends to show that before the policy lapsed plaintiff was suffering from a tubercular spine and that under these circumstances the injured man should not work while the condition was acute. When it became chronic his disability was total and permanent. The law is so well settled in these cases that we content ourselves with citation of United States v. National Bank of Commerce of Seattle (C.C.A.) 73 F.(2d) 721; United States v. Kane (C.C.A.) 70 F.(2d) 396; United States v. Baker (C.C.A.) 73 F.(2d) 691.

Upon consideration of the record and briefs, and after oral arguments of counsel for respective parties, ordered, judgment of District Court affirmed, that a judgment be filed and entered accordingly, and mandate of this court issue pursuant to provisions of rule 32.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff upon a policy of war risk insurance. The case was tried without a jury. The evidence tends to show that before the policy lapsed plaintiff was suffering from a tubercular spine and that under these circumstances the injured man should not work while the condition was acute. When it became chronic his disability was total and permanent. The law is so well settled in these cases that we content ourselves with citation of United States v. National Bank of Commerce of Seattle (C.C.A.) 73 F.(2d) 721; United States v. Kane (C.C.A.) 70 F.(2d) 396; United States v. Baker (C.C.A.) 73 F.(2d) 691.

Upon consideration of the record and briefs, and after oral arguments of counsel for respective parties, ordered, judgment of District Court affirmed, that a judgment be filed and entered accordingly, and mandate of this court issue pursuant to provisions of rule 32.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 F.2d 311, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 2976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-christenson-ca9-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack