Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

State Securities Co. v. Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Insurance

State Sec. Co. v. Federated Mut. Implement & Hardware Ins., 308 F.2d 452 (8th Cir. 1962)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1962-10-09
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. We affirm the judgment for the defendant (appellee) in this diversity case governed by Nebraska law and tried to Judge John W. Delehant without a jury. He has written an exhaustive opinion, reported in D.C., 204 F.Supp. 207, to which we can add nothing. That opinion and the briefs of the parties have convinced us that the judgment appealed from represents, at the very least, a permissible conclusion with respect to a doubtful question of Nebraska law, which this Court will not reverse.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed State Securities Co. v. Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Insurance. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
STATE SEC. v. FEDERATED MUT.,308 F.2d 452(8th Cir. 1962)
STATE SECURITIES COMPANY, a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Nebraska, Appellant, v. FEDERATED MUTUAL IMPLEMENT AND HARDWARE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Minnesota, and admitted to do business in the State of Nebraska, Appellee.
No. 16860.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
October 9, 1962.
Fred J. Patz, Lincoln, Neb., made argument for the appellant and Sterling F. Mutz, Lincoln, Neb., was on the brief.

F.B. Baylor, Lincoln, Neb., made argument for the appellee and Baylor, Evnen, Baylor Urbom by F.B. Baylor, Lincoln, Neb., was on the brief.
Before SANBORN and BLACKMUN, Circuit Judges, and REGISTER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the judgment for the defendant (appellee) in this diversity case governed by Nebraska law and tried to Judge John W. Delehant without a jury. He has written an exhaustive opinion, reported in D.C.,204 F. Supp. 207, to which we can add nothing. That opinion and the briefs of the parties have convinced us that the judgment appealed from represents, at the very least, a permissible conclusion with respect to a doubtful question of Nebraska law, which this Court will not reverse. Homolla v. Gluck, 8 Cir.,248 F.2d 731,733; Weiby v. Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 8 Cir.,273 F.2d 327,331; Village of Brooten v. Cudahy Packing Company, 8 Cir.,291 F.2d 284,301.
Affirmed.Page 453
Page 531