RITA ARSHT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CLARENCE HATTON, DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF, APPELLANT, V. NORMAN BUNIN, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT
RITA ARSHT, PLAINTIFF,
CLARENCE HATTON, DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF, APPELLANT, V. NORMAN BUNIN, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT
172 F.2d 220
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1949)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The questions presented by the appeal at bar'are so clearly those of fact that it is unnecessary to write an extended opinion in the instant case. There was ample evidence in the record from which the jury was entitled to find that the defendant was negligent. We can perceive no sound basis for concluding that the trial judge erred in permitting evidence to go to the jury as to the position of the debris and of the cars after the collision. The evidence submitted as to the condition of the highway also was clearly admissible. We state as well that we can find no substantial error in the court’s instructions to the jury.
Accordingly the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Newberry's Estate v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 201 F.2d 874 (3d Cir. 1953)
-
Est. OF Florence B. Moreno v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 260 F.2d 389 (8th Cir. 1958)
-
Est. of Joseph P. Grace v. The United States, 393 F.2d 939 (Ct. Cl. 1968)