Legal Opinion
City of Ketchikan v. Lot 5, & a Portion of Lot 4, Block 6-A
District Court, D. Alaska
Decided April 22, 1955No. Civ. No. 3249-KAPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FOLTA, District Judge.
In support of the defendant Union Oil Company’s motion for a new trial, it is contended that the Court erred (1) in rejecting the commissioners’ report; (2) in not following local procedure or that prescribed by Rule 71A, F.R.Civ. P., 28 U.S.C.A.; (3) in not separately assessing the several interests in the land; and (4) in holding that the defendant’s interest was that of an equitable mortgagee.
Difference of opinion as to the effect of Rule 71A upon local procedure, Ch. 7, Title 57, Alaska Code, impels me to reconsider the question. I am now convinced that Rule 71A…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Maytag Co. v. Meadows Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1930
- Lindner v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
- McRoberts v. StadelmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Trenton Oil Co., Inc. v. DriesNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954
3Cited by2 opinions
- Marcia M. Bryant v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, a Massachusetts Corporation, Marcia M. Bryant v. Connecticut Fire Insurance Company, a Corporation Organized Under the Laws of the State of ConnecticutCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1969
- Bryant v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1969