Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

331 F.2d 144

Docket No. 18941.

Ho v. United States

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided April 24, 1964.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1964-04-24

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 2005

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2671

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1964-04-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Walter G. Chuck, Yoshio Shigezawa, and Wallace Fujiyama, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellants.

¶2Herman T. F. Lum, U. S. Atty., and T. S. Goo, Asst. U. S. Atty., Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellee.

¶3Before CHAMBERS, KOELSCH and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The District Court’s finding that Dr. Ho did not have such control over his car as was reasonably required in the circumstances, and that his negligence contributed substantially to the automobile collision out of which this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 2671 et seq.) arose, is not clearly erroneous. The trial court did not err (1) in admitting the testimony of witnesses as to the speed at which Dr. IIo’s automobile was traveling, or (2) in denying the motion for a new trial.

¶6Affirmed.

/331/f2d/144 · .json · Public domain