Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Airlift International, Inc. v. United States of America

Airlift Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 460 F.2d 1065 (5th Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-06-09
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • fact of a mid-air collision between civilian and military aircraft over Republic of Vietnam during period of war was not sufficient to establish that loss resulted from a war risk rather than an aviation risk

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Airlift International, Inc. v. United States of America. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
AIRLIFT INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. UNITED STATES,460 F.2d 1065(5th Cir. 1972)
AIRLIFT INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 72-1435.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 9, 1972.
Walsh, Dolan Krupnick, P. A., Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for appellant.

L. Patrick Gray, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert W. Rust, U.S. Atty., Morton Hollander, Judith S. Feigin, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before BELL, DYER, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] The single issue raised on this appeal is whether the trial court, in a nonjury action brought to recover certain damages under an insurance contract, committed reversible error in refusing to admit certain expert testimony concerning the scope of the contract's coverage. We need not decide whether the court's ruling amounted to an abuse of discretion, for if it were, such error would be harmless in light of the remaining uncontested findings of fact and conclusions of law.Cf.Cain et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,460 F.2d 1243(5th Cir. 1972).

[2] Affirmed.Page 1066
  1. Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of N.Y.,431 F.2d 409, Part I (5th Cir. 1970). ↩