Legal Opinion
Grossman v. U. S. Slicing Machine Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided October 18, 1965No. Civ. A. No. 30668PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
VAN DUSEN, District Judge.
This case comes before the court on the plaintiff’s Motion For A New Trial. The plaintiff’s main contention is that a two-page statement dated shortly after the accident should not have been admitted into evidence at the trial and that its admission was reversible error.
The two-page statement in question was not written in the plaintiff’s handwriting (N.T. 70), but the plaintiff conceded that it was signed by him on page two (N.T. 68). The plaintiff specifically denied making a statement on page one attributed to him (N.T. 68) and, further, denied that the initials…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wright v. WilsonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1946
- Mary E. Michael v. World Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1958
- In re HayduDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1952
3Cited by1 opinion
- Max Grossman v. U. S. Slicing MacHine Company, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1966