Legal Opinion

Camarda v. Haberkorn

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided June 4, 1945No. 352PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

We think that crucial portions of the testimony did not receive adequate consideration by the Referee and the judge. The Referee’s opinion and findings show that he ignored the uncontradicted testimony of Hoey’s knowledge and belief concerning Sabbatino’s mental condition during the three months before the shooting. He ignored the significance of the fact that, after Hoey and Sabbatino had discussed the matter of rates, Sabbatino had left the office again to visit the saloon. He also disregarded Hoey’s earlier testimony, which Hoey admitted was correct, that, at the time…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. The GermanicSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  2. Munsey v. WebbSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  3. Gulbenkian v. GulbenkianCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
  4. Hall v. SmathersNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
  5. Golembe v. BlumbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. McCrink v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1947
  2. In Re Longhorn 1979-Ii Drilling ProgramUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1983
  3. Oliver v. Oakwood Country ClubSupreme Court of Missouri · 1951
  4. S. Birch & Sons v. MartinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957
  5. Mathis v. Atlantic Aircraft Distributors, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1958

3 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