BRUGERE

v.

SLIDELL; HEATH V. SLIDELL

Citator

Cited By

• Old Colony Bondholders v. New York, 161 F.2d 413 (2d Cir. 1947)
  …ing v. United States, 140 U.S. 417, 420, 11 S.Ct. 733, 35 L.Ed. 501; Moore, loc. cit., § 137. Cf. American Casualty Co. v. Windham, 5 Cir., 107 F. 2d 88, 89. The Argo, 1 C. Rob. 158, 159, quoted in Moore, loc. cit., § 140; see also Hardy v. Harbin, 154 U.S. 598, 601, 14 S.Ct. 1172, 22 L.Ed. 378. Ramopa Co. v. A. Guston & Co., D.C., 278 F. 557, 559. Fowler v. Roe, 11 N.J.Eq. 367, 368, 369. Hunter v. New York, O. & W. R. Co., 116 N.Y. 615, 23 N.E. 9, 6 L.R.A. 246; Gurley v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 104 Mo…
• Lemmons v. United States, 62 F.2d 608 (10th Cir. 1932)
  …uld be given to the testimony of experts because of their special knowledge and training. However, when it comes to experts on handwriting, many courts have looked upon thoir testimony as being particularly unreliable; for example, Hardy v. Harbin, 154 U. S. 598, 605, Appx. and 14 S. Ct. 1172, 22 L. Ed. 378, a case where there was expert testimony by men skilled in the comparison of handwritings. Appellant cites many cases where the courts regard such testimony as weak, unsafe, and unsatisfactory. Many of t…
• Cerecedo v. United States, 239 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1915)

Authorities Cited

• Bigelow v. Forrest, 9 Wall. 339 (U.S. 1869)
• Day v. Micou, 18 Wall. 156 (U.S. 1873)