CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY

v.

DAVID CAMPBELL

Citator

Cited By

• Elzig v. Gudwangen, 91 F.2d 434 (8th Cir. 1937)
  …weight of the evidence. Evidence which is uncontradicted is not necessarily to be accepted as true. Its weight and the credibility of the witnesses who gave it are usually for the jury to determine. In Davis v. Coblens, 174 U.S. 719, 19 S.Ct. 832, 43 L.Ed. 1147, error was assigned to the refusal of the court to give a requested instruction with respec : to certain uncontradicted evidence. The Supreme Court said (174 U.S. 719, at page 727, 19 S.Ct. 832, 835, 43 L.Ed. 1147) : “It is also objected that Walte…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Pittman v. United States, 42 F.2d 793 (8th Cir. 1930)
  …ion that such were the facts were unfair and created around appellant an atmosphere of prejudice. While the limits of cross-examination must, of course, be guided by the discretion of the trial court, Davis v. Coblens, 174 U. S. 719, 19 S. Ct. 832, 43 L. Ed. 1147; Quigley v. United States (C. C. A.) 19 F.(2d) 756; Eppinger & Russell Co. v. Sheely (C. C. A.) 24 F.(2d) 153; Portman v. United States (C. C. A.) 34 F.(2d) 406, cross-examination should not be permitted to be used to covertly convey to the minds of…
• Silverman v. United States, 59 F.2d 636 (1st Cir. 1932)
  …e. We do not think there was a clear abuse of that discretion in this case. Portman v. United States (C. C. A.) 34 F.(2d) 406; Powers v. United States, 223 U. S. 303, 32 S. Ct. 281, 56 L. Ed. 448; Davis v. Coblens, 174 U. S. 719, 729; 19 S. Ct. 832, 43 L. Ed. 1147; Holsman v. United States (C. C. A.) 248 F. 193, 196; DeWitt v. Skinner (C. C. A.) 232 F. 443. The twelfth and thirteenth assignments relate to the refusal to give requested' instructions, viz.: that the government had not sustained the burden of.…