Legal Opinion

Bachner v. Eickhoff & Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided March 29, 1939No. E85-350PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

BYERS, District Judge.

At the close of this trial but before the case was submitted to the jury, the plaintiff moved for a directed verdict, and the defendant for dismissal of the complaint. Decision as to both motions was reserved, and the case was submitted to the jury, subject to that reservation.

The plaintiff has now moved to set aside the verdict, which was rendered for the defendant, and for judgment in his favor pursuant to his motion for a direct*106ed verdict. It is believed that the court is in possession of the power, under Rule 50 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Rogers v. PalmerSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. In re PeaseDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1902
  3. In re DunavantDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · 1899

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Ricotta v. Burns Coal & Building Supply Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API