Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Jessie I. Schuyler, Ancillary of the Estate of Earl Carroll, Deceased v. United Air Lines, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

188 F.2d 968

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1951-05-16
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. On this appeal the plaintiff complains of the refusal of the district court to grant her a new trial, the jury having rendered a verdict for the defendant on the former trial. In a most careful opinion Chief Judge Watson of the district court considered all the plaintiff’s contentions and concluded that the motion should be denied. 94 F.Supp. 472. We find ourselves in complete accord with his reasoning and conclusions and need add nothing to what he has so well said. The judgment will be affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Jessie I. Schuyler, Ancillary of the Estate of Earl Carroll, Deceased v. United Air Lines, Inc., a Delaware Corporation. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
5 opinions
SCHUYLER v. UNITED AIR LINES,188 F.2d 968(3rd Cir. 1951)
Jessie I. SCHUYLER, Ancillary Executrix of the Estate of Earl Carroll,
Deceased, Appellant, v. UNITED AIR LINES, Inc., a Delaware Corporation.
No. 10412.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued May 10, 1951.
Decided May 16, 1951.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Albert L. Watson, Judge.
Douglas N. Sharretts, Baltimore, Md. (Guy E. Ward, Beverly Hills, Cal., Ralph P. Needle, Scranton, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

Owen B. Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa. (Arthur E. Newbold, III, Philadelphia, Pa., Eugene Nogi, Scranton, Pa., Barnes, Dechert, Price, Myers Clark, Philadelphia, Pa., Nogi, O'Malley Harris, Scranton, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARIS, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
On this appeal the plaintiff complains of the refusal of the district court to grant her a new trial, the jury having rendered a verdict for the defendant on the former trial. In a most careful opinion Chief Judge Watson of the district court considered all the plaintiff's contentions and concluded that the motion should be denied.94 F. Supp. 472. We find ourselves in complete accord with his reasoning and conclusions and need add nothing to what he has so well said.

The judgment will be affirmed.Page 969Page 35