108 F.2d 718 - Nugent v. Proel — 108 F.2d 718

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently August 1977

4 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Robert W. Upton, of Concord, N. H. (Emory C. Mower, of Burlington, Vt., and Neil Tolman, of Nashua, N. H., on the brief), for appellant.

¶2Carl C. Jones, of Concord, N. H. (James B. Godfrey and Demond, Sulloway, Piper & Jones, all of Concord, N. H., on the brief), for appellee.

¶3Before MAGRUDER, Circuit Judge, and MAHONEY and PETERS, District Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This is a suit for personal injuries. When the case was here before, we reversed a judgment for the' plaintiff because on the evidence as we viewed it a verdict for the defendant should have been directed. Proel v. Nugent, 1 Cir., 1938, 97 F.2d 353. Upon retrial of the case, the trial judge concluded that the evidence did not to any considerable extent vary from that presented before, and hence directed a verdict for the defendant in accordance with our previous opinion. We agree with this disposition of the case.

¶6The judgment of the District Court is affirmed with costs to the appellee.