F. A. R. Liquidating Corp. v. Brownell
District Court, D. Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
LEAHY, Chief Judge.
The ultimate issue in this case is a fact issue. The conceded point is whether plaintiff has met the requirement of burden of proof. Defendant’s case is plaintiff has failed to meet such burden, and cannot ask the court to substitute assumptions or inferences from subsidiary facts, absent any master facts to support plaintiff’s claim. At trial defendant objected to the admissibility in evidence of certain documents offered by plaintiff. In order not to cut the continuity of the decision here, I shall discuss the evidence points in an Appendix to follow this memorandum.
F. A.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Finnegan v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1953
- United States v. ValentiCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
- Lukon v. Pennsylvania R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
- F.A.R. Liquidating Corp. v. Brownell, Atty. GenCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1954
- United States v. United Shoe MacHinery CorporationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1950
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Universe Tankships, Inc. v. Pyrate Tank Cleaners, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1957
- American Ladder & Scaffold Co. v. EadieDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1960
- Salvatore Daniel, Formerly Known as Salvatore Pucci Daniele v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968