Legal Opinion
Feeney v. Stieringer
District Court, W.D. New York
Decided January 14, 1957No. C. A. Nos. 6195, 6296-6298, 6301PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MORGAN, District Judge.
The above causes were consolidated by order of my predecessor, the late Honorable John Knight, on October 11, 1954, wherein it was ordered that the plaintiff in the first action above listed was to have the right to open and close. The issues were complicated; the trial began on April 24, 1956 and concluded May 4, 1956. Six attorneys actively participated.
The accident occurred in the State of Pennsylvania at the intersection ■of route U.S. 5, which at that point ran in a generally easterly and westerly direction, and route 89, which at that point ran in a generally…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. DuncanSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Howard D. Jury, Inc. v. R & G Sloane Manufacturing Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1981
- Eulo v. Deval Aerodynamics, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1969