Legal Opinion

Siembab v. Burgess Exp. Co.

District Court, D. Rhode Island

Decided August 26, 1941No. 36Published

1Opinion of the Court

HARTIGAN, District Judge.

Within ten days after the reception of the verdict for the plaintiff on April 17, 1941, in the sum of $15,000, the defendant, having moved fór a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence in the trial of said cause, and said motion having been denied, now moves, pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, to have the verdict and judgment entered thereon set aside and to have judgment entered in accordance with its motion for a directed verdict on the following grounds:(1) That the evidence was insufficient…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Barry v. EdmundsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Whipple v. Cumberland Manuf'g Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1843
  3. McCabe v. Narragansett Electric Lighting Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1904
  4. Reynolds v. Narragansett Electric Lighting Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1904
  5. Peters v. United Electric Railways Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1937

1 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