TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

James E. Scrivener v. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company

James E. SCRIVENER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. the ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant

Scrivener v. The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 409 F.2d 1356 (5th Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 19, 1969
Docket
No. 26898_1
Judges
Brown, Thornberry, Morgan
Citations
409 F.2d 13561969 U.S. App. LEXIS 13194

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from a judgment on a jury verdict in favor of James E. Scrivener on a F.E.L.A. action under 45 U.S.C.A., Section 51 , against The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company. The errors asserted on appeal relate solely to the trial Court’s charges as given to the jury. Appellant Railway contends error was committed by the District Court in giving certain instructions to the jury and in failing to give other instructions as requested by it. Having studied the briefs and record, we are of the opinion that the case is appropriate for summary disposition without oral argument. Pursuant to new Rule 18 of the Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Clerk of this Court has been directed to place this on the summary calendar and notify the parties in writing.

1

As the only errors insisted upon concern the instructions to the jury, we have carefully reviewed the entire charge, and when taken as a whole, these instructions correctly set forth the applicable law, and were fair and adequate based on the evidence presented and the contentions aired by the parties in the trial Court. Grey v. First National Bank in Dallas, 393 F.2d 371 (5 Cir. 1968); Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company v. Nolan, 331 F.2d 711 (5 Cir. 1964); Burns v. Travelers Insurance Company, 344 F.2d 70 (5 Cir. 1965).

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

1

. In order to establish a docket control procedure, the Fifth Circuit adopted new Rules 17-20 on December 6, 1968. See Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Davis, 5 Cir., 1969, 406 F.2d 1158 .

How later courts describe this case

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

1969: 11975: 219692026peak 1975 · 2

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir. 1969) 103
Cornelia O'COnnOr Grey, James Charles Grey & Michael Carter Grey v. First Nat'l Bank in Dallas, 393 F.2d 371 (1st Cir. 1968) 51
Burns v. Travelers Ins. Co. & Mich. Mut. Liab. Co., 344 F.2d 70 (5th Cir. 1965) 13

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