Legal Opinion · Dissent

Goldman v. Piedmont Fire Ins. Co.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided September 30, 1952No. 10704_1Published

1DissentMcLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge

This action should be sent back for a new trial because of the serious results which arose from a misunderstanding as to what had occurred at an unrecorded trial conference between the court and counsel. The situation was not cured, as the majority opinion contends, by plaintiff’s attorney saying, “I will take it as your Honor remembers it.” That statement followed and was intimately connected with the attorney’s request that the court charge “ * * that this is the clause and that the burden is upon the defendants to prove it by the preponderance of the evidence.” The judge, answering that…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Royal Exch. Assur. v. ThrowerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1917
  2. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. BachmannSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  3. Schaffer v. Hampton Farmers Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
  4. Krieg v. Phoenix Insurance Co. of HartfordSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1936
  5. Mercantile Ins. v. Union Stock Yards Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1905

7 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