Legal Opinion
Moore v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 20, 1924No. 4306PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRudkin, Circuit Judge
(after stating thf facts as above). The first and principal assignment of error challenges the sufficiency of the testimony to support the verdict. No such challenge was interposed during the trial in the court below, by motion for a directed verdict or otherwise, and the rule is well settled that that question cannot be raised for the first time by motion for a new trial or in the appellate court. Bilboa v. United States (C. C. A.) 287 F. 125. But, aside from this, the assignment is without merit. The representation that the 3,000 drilling shares placed in escrow would only be released and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hyde v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Claassen v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Ballew v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Bilboa v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1923
- McDonald v. PlessCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1913
3Cited by10 opinions
- Department of Water and Power v. AndersonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
- Northern Pacific Railway Company, a Corporation v. Tillie Mely, as Administratrix of the Estate of A. E. Mely, DeceasedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1954
- McElheny v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1944
- McWalters v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925
- Mitton v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.