Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

172 F.2d 220

Docket No. 9689.

Arsht v. Hatton

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Dec. 22, 1948.

Decided Jan. 6, 1949.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1949-01-06

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1968

2 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on 80 F. Supp. 148 - Arsht v. Hatton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1949-01-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1See also, D. C., 80 F.Supp. 148.

¶2Tood Daniel, of Philadelphia, for appellant.

¶3S. Samuel Arsht, of Wilmington, Del. (Alexander L. Nichols and Morris, Steel, Nichols & Arsht, all of Wilmington, Del., and Louis H. Wilderman and Melvin A. Bank, both of Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

¶4Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and GOODRICH and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6The questions presented by the appeal at bar'are so clearly those of fact that it is unnecessary to write an extended opinion in the instant case. There was ample evidence in the record from which the jury was entitled to find that the defendant was negligent. We can perceive no sound basis for concluding that the trial judge erred in permitting evidence to go to the jury as to the position of the debris and of the cars after the collision. The evidence submitted as to the condition of the highway also was clearly admissible. We state as well that we can find no substantial error in the court’s instructions to the jury.

¶7Accordingly the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

/172/f2d/220 · .json · Public domain