Legal Opinion
Warren W. Tarkington v. United States Lines Company
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided May 11, 1955No. 23528_1PublishedCited by 48 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
1. Judge Edelstein correctly interpreted the rule of Mollica v. Compania Sud-Americana DeVapores, 2 Cir., 202 F.2d 25, and other cases, and properly directed a verdict for the defendant under the law as then interpreted in this Circuit.
2. An appeal of the original judgment is barred by the fact that plaintiff did not file his notice of appeal until May 28, 1954, sixty-four days after entry of the original judgment. But the appeal is timely as to the question raised by the motion to reopen the judgment. See, e. g., United States v. Wis-sahickon Tool Works, 2 Cir., 200 F.2d…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Alaska Steamship Co. v. PettersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Petterson v. Alaska S. S. Co., IncCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1953
- Mollica v. Compania Sud-Americana De Vapores (Chilean Line)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
3Cited by48 opinions
- International Controls Corp. v. Robert L. Vesco, and Vesco & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977
- United States v. Michael D. WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1982
- In Re Texlon CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1979
- Arnold Schildhaus v. Kenneth W. Moe, as District Director of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1964
- Quincy Lairsey and Frances Lairsey v. The Advance Abrasives CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.