United States v. Mary J. Martin

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Mary J. Martin

354 F.2d 686, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7619

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 5, 1966

Docket22267_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 354 F.2d 686 (United States v. Mary J. Martin) 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

United States v. Mary J. Martin, 354 F.2d 686, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7619 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellee, Mary J. Martin, was seriously injured while working at the Lone Star Ordnance Plant, owned by the United States and operated by Day & Zimmerman, Inc., under a cost-plus fixed-fee contract. She brought suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq. The Government appeals from a judgment for Mrs. Martin. It asserts two grounds of error: first, that the court erred in finding the Government negligent, and second, in holding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied. The development of the law would not be advanced by an extended opinion discussing the application of legal principles to the facts as developed by the evidence. It is enough that we say that the determinations of the district court reflected in its findings and conclusions justify the judgment which was entered. The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The appellee, Mary J. Martin, was seriously injured while working at the Lone Star Ordnance Plant, owned by the United States and operated by Day & Zimmerman, Inc., under a cost-plus fixed-fee contract. She brought suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq. The Government appeals from a judgment for Mrs. Martin. It asserts two grounds of error: first, that the court erred in finding the Government negligent, and second, in holding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied. The development of the law would not be advanced by an extended opinion discussing the application of legal principles to the facts as developed by the evidence. It is enough that we say that the determinations of the district court reflected in its findings and conclusions justify the judgment which was entered. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 F.2d 686, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mary-j-martin-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack