Legal Opinion

Meldram v. Curtis & Bro.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided December 11, 1928No. 12128Published

1Opinion of the Court

DICKINSON, District Judge.

Had this cause been tried in the state court, the motion would have been one for judgment in favor of the defendant n. o. .v. Such a motion would meet the practical situation, because, if the argument for the defendant is accepted and following it the present rule is made absolute, it would logically lead upon a new trial to binding instructions for the defendant. The real question is whether the case should have been submitted to the jury. There is no pressed criticism of the verdict, either on the fact merits of the finding of negligence or the sum of the damages…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Slocum v. New York Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  2. Barrett v. Virginian Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919
  3. Hartig v. American Ice Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  4. Shaughnessy v. Director General of RailroadsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  5. Holland v. Director General of RailroadsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1921

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API