Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Lee Herman and Victor Herman v. Eagle Star Insurance Company, Ltd., Etc.

Lee Herman & Victor Herman v. Eagle Star Ins. Co., Ltd., Etc., 396 F.2d 427 (9th Cir. 1968)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1968-04-05
Topic
litigation

PER CURIAM: In this diversity action against three insurance companies on a claim under certain policies of insurance for the loss of a $35,000 diamond ring, judgment was entered for the defendants on a jury verdict. Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting evidence concerning the polygraph of plaintiff Lee Herman, the purport of which evidence was that she had made untruthful statements concerning the loss of the ring. In admitting the polygraph testimony the trial court did not pass upon the reliability of evidence of this character but ruled that it was admissible in view of what the court regarded as a binding stipulation entered into before trial. We affirm for the reasons stated by the trial court in its memorandum opinion denying plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial, reported in 283 F.Supp. 33.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Lee Herman and Victor Herman v. Eagle Star Insurance Company, Ltd., Etc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
13 opinions
HERMAN v. EAGLE STAR INSURANCE COMPANY,396 F.2d 427(9th Cir. 1968)
Lee HERMAN and Victor Herman, Appellants, v. EAGLE STAR INSURANCE COMPANY,
Ltd., etc., et al., Appellees.
No. 21556.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
April 5, 1968.
Arthur Soll (argued), of Jaffe, Osterman Soll, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants.

William F. Rylaarsdam (argued), James O. White, of Cummins, White Breidenbach, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.
Before CHAMBERS and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, District Judge.fn*
PER CURIAM:
In this diversity action against three insurance companies on a claim under certain policies of insurance for the loss of a $35,000 diamond ring, judgment was entered for the defendants on a jury verdict. Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting evidence concerning the polygraph of plaintiff Lee Herman, the purport of which evidence was that she had made untruthful statements concerning the loss of the ring.

In admitting the polygraph testimony the trial court did not pass upon the reliability of evidence of this character but ruled that it was admissible in view of what the court regarded as a binding stipulation entered into before trial. We affirm for the reasons stated by the trial court in its memorandum opinion denying plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, reported in283 F. Supp. 33.Page 428
  1. The Honorable Russell E. Smith, District Judge, District of Montana, sitting by designation. ↩