Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

304 F.2d 875

Docket No. 14795.

Smith v. United States

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided June 15, 1962.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1962-06-15

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1962

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Beit v. United States · Valente v. United States · Charles P. Gillen, Jr., and Charles P. Gillen Iii, a Minor, by Charles P. Gillen, Jr., His Guardian Ad Litem v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1962-06-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Louis E. Peiser, Memphis, Tenn., on the brief, William K. Moody, Memphis, Tenn., for appellant.

¶2Thomas L. Robinson, U. S. Atty., Edward N. Vaden, Asst. U. S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn., on the brief. William H. Orrick, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Civil Divi-. sion, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

¶3Before MILLER, Chief Judge, and McALLISTER and WEICK, Circuit Judges.

¶4*876ORDER.

¶5This action was filed against the Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act by the mother of Oliver Smith, Jr., a six-year old boy who was run over and killed by a mail truck on a street in Memphis, Tennessee. The action is based upon the alleged negligence of the driver of the mail truck. 28 United States Code, §§ 1346(b), 2674.

¶6The District Judge, hearing the case without a jury, held that the plaintiff had not met the burden of proving negligence on the part of the operator of the truck and dismissed the complaint. We have reviewed the evidence and are of the opinion that this finding of fact is not clearly erroneous and must be accepted on this appeal. Rule 52(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.; Beit v. United States, 260 F.2d 386, C.A., 6th; Valente v. United States, 264 F.2d 800, C.A. 6th; Gillen v. United States, 281 F.2d 425, 427, C.A. 9th.

¶7It is ordered that the judgment be affirmed.

/304/f2d/875 · .json · Public domain