Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

74 F.2d 1021

Docket No. 7567.

United States v. Buege

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Jan. 21, 1935.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1935-01-21

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1935

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on United States v. Spaulding · United States v. Stephens

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Curtis Dwight Wilbur · Decided 1935-01-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1John A. Carver, U. S. Atty., of Boise, Idaho, Will G. Beardslee, Director, Bureau of War Risk Litigation, of Washington, D. C., Wilbur C. Pickett, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., and Armistead L. Boothe, Atty., Dept, of Justice, of Washington, D. C.

¶2Jess Hawley and Oscar W. Worthwine, both of Boise, Idaho, for appellee.

¶3Before WILBUR and GARRECHT, Circuit Judges, and NORCROSS, District Judge.

¶4WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

¶5This is an action upon a war risk insurance policy. The trial court erred in the ruling upon the admissibility of expert testimony upon the question of total and permanent disability. It is conceded on the argument that the rulings come squarely within our decision in United States v. Stephens, 73 F.(2d) 695, rendered November 13, 1934. See, also, recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Spaulding, 55 S. Ct. 273, 79 L. Ed. —, decided January 7, 1935.

¶6For this error the judgment is reversed.

/74/f2d/1021 · .json · Public domain