FOGARTY ET AL.

v.

AUSTRIAN ET AL., TRUSTEES; AND PASTERNAK, EXECUTOR, V. AUSTRIAN ET AL., TRUSTEES

Citator

Cited By (41 total)

• Perez v. United States, 297 F.2d 12 (5th Cir. 1961)
  …first count, however, reversal of the judgment as to the second count does not alone require reversal of the entire judgment. United States v. Bailey, 277 F. 2d 560 (7 Cir. 1960); Marteney v. United States, 218 F. 2d 258 (10th Cir. 1954), cert. den. 348 U.S. 953, 75 S.Ct. 442, 99 L.Ed. 745. We are of the opinion, however, that the judgment as to the first count must be reversed on appellants’ claim that the trial judge erred in refusing to give certain requested instructions. In his instructions to the ju…
• Roberson v. United States, 249 F.2d 737 (5th Cir. 1957)
  …use that discretion will not be interfered with. See Alderman v. United States, 5 Cir., 1929, 31 F. 2d 499. This is particularly true as to colllateral or irrelevant matters. Marteney v. United States, 10 Cir., 1954, 218 F. 2d 258, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 953, 75 S.Ct. 442, 99 L.Ed. 745; Dolan v. United States, 8 Cir., 1955, 218 F. 2d 454; 3 Wharton’s Crim.Evid. 12th Ed. 258 § 867. In terminating the colloquy with counsel with respect to the cross-examination of the witness McBrayer, the court said, “I…
• Calnetics Corp. & Meier-Line, Inc. v. Volkswagen OF Am., Inc., 532 F.2d 674 (9th Cir. 1976)
  …9 (3d Cir. 1967). Although the court in granting summary judgment misapplied substantive law, the judgment should not be reversed if it is correct for some other reason. See Archer v. United States, 217 F. 2d 548, 551 (9th Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 953, 75 S.Ct. 441, 99 L.Ed. 745 (1955); 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 56.27[1], at 2975 (2d ed. 1948, as amended, 1975). Thus, we must reach Distributor’s argument that summary judgment was correct because Calnetics failed to produce any credible evide…