164 F.2d 106 - Martin v. Staples — 164 F.2d 106

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1974

2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

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.

¶1Mr. Louis E. Spiegler, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Sol M. Alpher, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

¶2Mr. John P.' Labofish, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Joseph George Dondero, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

¶3Before EDGERTON, Associate Justice, MARIS, Circuit Judge, and PRETTY-MAN, Associate Justice.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This appeal was taken from a jury’s verdict before judgment had been entered. It is therefore premature and must be dismissed. St. Louis Amusement Co. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 8 Cir., 156 F.2d 400; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 58, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. However, we have examined the record and find that the judgment would be affirmed if it were before us. Appellant is the beneficiary of a will which has been denied probate because the jury found that the will had been procured by undue influence, duress, or coercion. Appellant, conceding .that thé definitions of undue influence, duress and coercion in the instructions of the trial judge to the jury were correct, urges that there was no evidence to support the jury’s verdict. ■ We find that the evidence was ample.

¶6Appeal dismissed.