Legal Opinion

Steil v. Holland

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided February 2, 1925No. 4268PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHunt, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). As the record fails to show that defendants below, plaintiffs in error here, moved for an instructed verdict on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence, the general assignment that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict presents no question for review. Bank of Italy v. Romeo (C. C. A.) 287 F. 5. In Penn Casualty Co. v. Whiteway, 210 F. 782, 127 C. C. A. 332, we said: “When an action at law is tried before a jury, their verdict is not subject to review, unless there is absence of substantial evidence to sustain it, and even then it is…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bank of Waterproof v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1924
  2. Pennsylvania Casualty Co. v. WhitewayCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1914
  3. Bank of Italy v. F. Romeo & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1923
  4. Hinton v. WelchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Laurie v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1922

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. M. Shapiro & Son Construction Co. v. BattagliaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
  2. Hans Zimmerman v. Delos C. EmmonsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1955
  3. Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. ElmCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API