United States v. Noble

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Noble

79 F.2d 342, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 4107

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 13, 1935

DocketNos. 7776, 7784, 7786

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 79 F.2d 342 (United States v. Noble) 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. Noble, 79 F.2d 342, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 4107 (9th Cir. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these cases, in response to a hypothetical question calling for such conclusion, plaintiffs’ medical experts testified that in their opinion the plaintiff was totally and permanently disabled before the expiration of his war risk insurance policy. This evidence was incompetent. United States v. Spaulding, 293 U. S. 498, 55 S. Ct. 273, 79 L. Ed. 617; United States v. Stephens (C. C. A.) 73 F.(2d) 695; United States v. White, 77 F.(2d) 757, decided by this court May 20, 1935; United States v. Harris (C. C. A.) 79 F.(2d) 341, decided September 9, 1935.

In each case the government objected to the question, reserved an exception to the overruling of the objection, and assigned the ruling as error. The appellees claim that the obj ection to the question was not sufficiently specific to direct the attention of the trial court to its incompetency.

Reversed on the authority of United States v. White, supra, and United States v. Harris, supra.

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

PER CURIAM.

In these cases, in response to a hypothetical question calling for such conclusion, plaintiffs’ medical experts testified that in their opinion the plaintiff was totally and permanently disabled before the expiration of his war risk insurance policy. This evidence was incompetent. United States v. Spaulding, 293 U. S. 498, 55 S. Ct. 273, 79 L. Ed. 617; United States v. Stephens (C. C. A.) 73 F.(2d) 695; United States v. White, 77 F.(2d) 757, decided by this court May 20, 1935; United States v. Harris (C. C. A.) 79 F.(2d) 341, decided September 9, 1935.

In each case the government objected to the question, reserved an exception to the overruling of the objection, and assigned the ruling as error. The appellees claim that the obj ection to the question was not sufficiently specific to direct the attention of the trial court to its incompetency.

Reversed on the authority of United States v. White, supra, and United States v. Harris, supra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 F.2d 342, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 4107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-noble-ca9-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack