Legal Opinion

Burlington Transp. Co. v. Stoltz

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided October 11, 1951No. 4273_1PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HUXMAN, Circuit Judge.

Earl C. Stoltz instituted this action against appellant, Burlington Transportation Company, to recover damages for the wrongful death of his minor son, while a passenger on appellant’s bus. There is no conflict in the evidence. In fact, appellant defendant below introduced no evidence relating to the occurrence of the accident resulting in the death of appellee’s minor son. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff on which judgment was entered. Eight assignments of error are urged for reversal. All but one relate to alleged errors in the trial court’s instructions. The…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Northern Pacific Railroad v. BabcockSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  2. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. SoileauCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1948
  3. McAfee v. Ogden Union Ry. & Depot Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Van Cleave v. LynchUtah Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Coke v. TimbyUtah Supreme Court · 1920

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. United States v. Alice L. EnglishCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
  2. Byron T. Weeks, Guardian Ad Litem of Valerie Weeks, a Minor v. Latter-Day Saints Hospital, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1969
  3. Burke v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  4. Richards v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1960
  5. Bannowsky v. KrauserDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1969

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API