TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Essie Turner Melton v. Capital Transit Company, a Corporation

Essie Turner MELTON, Appellant, v. CAPITAL TRANSIT COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee

Essie Turner Melton v. Capital Transit Co., a Corp., 253 F.2d 42 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 27, 1958
Docket
No. 14110
Judges
Edgerton, Bazelon, Danaher
Citations
253 F.2d 42102 U.S. App. D.C. 306

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff appeals from a District Court order certifying a personal injury suit to the Municipal Court. The transfer was based only on the record as it stood at the date of the order, with medical reports then many months old. Of course the plaintiff will be permitted to offer proof of all factors which may give rise to damages in excess of $3,000. D. C.Code, § 11-756 (Supp. V 1957) expressly provides for such situations in that the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court “shall extend to the amount claimed in such action, even though it exceed the sum of $3,000.”

Appellant’s counsel complains that defense counsel frequently argue in transferred cases that damages in excess of $3,000 should not be awarded and point to the District Court’s order as indicating that such is the already established opinion of a District Judge. The order of transfer should be irrelevant in any situation where as to damages the plaintiff offers evidence which was not before the District Judge at the date of the order. We would suppose that upon request, the plaintiff should be entitled to receive an instruction that the jury should disregard any such argument and may award damages in such amount as it shall find the plaintiff is entitled to receive up to the amount claimed in the action. In the circumstances mentioned, what shall have appeared “to the satisfaction” of the District Judge should have no bearing upon the jury’s consideration of the transferred case.

On the record before us we find no ,9 abuse of discretion. Barnard v. Schneider, 1957, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 152 , 243 F. 2d 258 .

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1958: 11960: 11962: 11963: 11974: 119582026peak 1958 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ellis P. Block v. District of Columbia492 F.2d 646 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
  2. Archie Bradsher Davis v. Peerless Insurance Co.255 F.2d 534 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
  3. Evening Star Newspaper Company v. Gray179 A.2d 377 (D.C. 1962)
  4. Ruth H. Gray and Chester H. Gray v. Evening Star Newspaper Company277 F.2d 91 (D.C. Cir. 1960)
  5. Piper v. Andrews216 F. Supp. 758 (D.D.C. 1963)

Most recent

  1. Ellis P. Block v. District of Columbia492 F.2d 646 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
  2. Piper v. Andrews216 F. Supp. 758 (D.D.C. 1963)
  3. Evening Star Newspaper Company v. Gray179 A.2d 377 (D.C. 1962)
  4. Ruth H. Gray and Chester H. Gray v. Evening Star Newspaper Company277 F.2d 91 (D.C. Cir. 1960)
  5. Archie Bradsher Davis v. Peerless Insurance Co.255 F.2d 534 (D.C. Cir. 1958)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Barnard v. Schneider, 243 F.2d 258 (D.C. Cir. 1957) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list