Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Walter D. Beezer v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, a Corporation

203 F.2d 954

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1953-04-16
Topic: general

PER CURIAM. The appellant contends that the judgment of the court below should be reversed, asserting that no actionable negligence was shown on its part which was the proximate cause of the accident, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that the evidence as to the impaired physical condition of the plaintiff was insufficient, and that the verdict was excessive. Every contention made is fully answered by the opinion of Judge Stewart. See 107 F.Supp. 361. Since we perceive no error, the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Walter D. Beezer v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, a Corporation. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 10 opinions

BEEZER v. BALTIMORE OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY,203 F.2d 954(3rd Cir. 1953)

Walter D. BEEZER v. BALTIMORE OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation,

Appellant.

No. 10945.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued March 19, 1953.

Decided April 16, 1953.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; William Alvah Stewart, J.

Vincent M. Casey, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Marvin D. Power, Margiotti Casey, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

E.V. Buckley, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Mercer Buckley, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and MARIS and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant contends that the judgment of the court below should be reversed, asserting that no actionable negligence was shown on its part which was the proximate cause of the accident, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that the evidence as to the impaired physical condition of the plaintiff was insufficient, and that the verdict was excessive. Every contention made is fully answered by the opinion of Judge Stewart. See107 F. Supp. 361. Since we perceive no error, the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.