Legal Opinion
Mullen v. Fitz Simons & Connell Dredge & Dock Co.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided October 17, 1950No. 47 C 1442PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SULLIVAN, District Judge.
The plaintiff has submitted a memorandum in opposition to defendant’s motion for directed verdict. It is his assertion that the defendant has waived its right to have the court pass upon this motion, and that the court is without jurisdiction to pass upon the same at this time.
At the trial at the conclusion of all the evidence, defendant moved orally for a directed verdict on all three counts of the plaintiff’s complaint, specifying the grounds which entitled it to a favorable' decision. This court reserved decision “until further order of the court” and set a date…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. RedmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Hammond-Knowlton v. Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co. of Hartford, Conn.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1939
- Southeastern Greyhound Lines v. McCaffertyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1948
- Kline v. YokomCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1941
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rita E. Shaw v. Edward Hines Lumber Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1957
- Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Wagner-Morehouse, Inc., Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Wagner-Morehouse, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1968
- Sattler v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.District Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1955
- Mullen v. Fitz Simons & Connell Dredge & Dock Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1952