TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Anthony Barbuscia v. Reading Company

Anthony BARBUSCIA v. READING COMPANY, Appellant

Barbuscia v. Reading Co., 295 F.2d 236 (3d Cir. 1961)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 9, 1961
Docket
No. 13622_1
Judges
Goodrich, McLaughlin, Hastie
Citations
295 F.2d 2361961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3505

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in an F.E.L.A. case. He claims permanent injury through an accident which occurred when he was stacking some lumber being torn from the ceiling of a building belonging to the defendant. The question of the believability of the plaintiff’s story was a jury question and the jury took his version in the face of a strong case to the contrary. Complaint is made of several matters which occurred in the course of the trial. One has to do with the failure to grant a continuance at the defendant’s request. Another has to do with the exclusion of proffered testimony based upon an Army medical report made seventeen years pri- *237 or to the trial. Another has to do with whether there was anything to show contributory negligence which could have been argued to the jury. These first two objections fall within the general discretion of the trial judge who is in charge of the case. We agree that there was no evidence of contributory negligence. We do not find that here there was any reversible error.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1975: 11977: 119752026peak 1975 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Courtney v. Courtney542 P.2d 164 (Alaska 1975)
  2. United States v. Howard Taylor562 F.2d 572 (8th Cir. 1977)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Howard Taylor562 F.2d 572 (8th Cir. 1977)
  2. Courtney v. Courtney542 P.2d 164 (Alaska 1975)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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