Legal Opinion
Allen v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co.
District Court, W.D. Louisiana
Decided March 5, 1951No. Civ. A. No. 2873PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PORTERIE, District Judge.
When we overruled the motion for a directed verdict, at the close of the whole case, we felt then that the motion would likely have to be sustained later. However, as indicated by Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A., we thought the verdict of the jury should be sought to prevent the repetition of a whole new trial, in ease we were wrong.
Motion for directed verdict at close of case (Judgment notwithstanding verdict)
In passing on this motion, the evidence must be considered in its aspect most favorable to…
2Cases cited52 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Feres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. DuncanSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Galloway v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Gloria Mae Brown, in Person, and on Behalf of Her Minor Children, Joann and Velda Marie v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1956
- Allen v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1952
- Allen v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1952
- De Jean v. Great American Indemnity Co.District Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1954