United States v. Atkinson

Decision Date03 February 1936
Docket NumberNo. 265,265
PartiesUNITED STATES v. ATKINSON
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Homer S. Cummings, Atty. Gen., and Will G. Beardslee, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.

Mr. Warren E. Miller, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case was brought here on certiorari, 296 U.S. 559, 56 S.Ct. 123, 80 L.Ed. 394, to review a determination of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, said to be inconsistent with our decision in Miller v. United States, 294 U.S. 435, 55 S.Ct. 440, 79 L.Ed. 977. The challenged holding is that there is statutory authority for including in contracts of United States government insurance (converted war risk insurance) covering death or total permanent disability a provision that 'the permanent loss of hearing of both ears * * * shall be deemed to be total disability.' The case was tried in the District Court to a jury which rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, respondent here. Judgment in his favor was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 76 F.(2d) 564, which held that the insertion in the policy of the quoted definition of total disability, pursuant to Veterans' Administration Regulation, § 3122, was authorized by 43 Stat. 624, 1309, 38 U.S.C. § 512 (38 U.S.C.A. § 512).1

The government, by its assignment of errors here, assails, as it did in the court below, the correctness of this ruling, but examination of the record discloses that no such objection was presented to the trial court. In consequence the government is precluded from raising the question on appeal.

The trial judge instructed the jury that respondent might recover either on the theory that his loss of hearing constituted in fact a permanent disability preventing his pursuit of any substantially gainful occupation, or that his loss of hearing of both ears, if permanent, was a permanent disability as defined by the policy. The jury was thus left free to return a verdict for respondent if it found that he had suffered permanent loss of hearing of both ears, regardless of its effect upon his ability to earn his livelihood. The government failed to question the correctness of these instructions either by exception or request to charge, and its motion for a directed verdict was upon other grounds not now material.

The verdict of a jury will not ordinarily be set aside for error not brought to the attention of the trial court. This practice is founded upon considerations of fairness to the court and to the parties and of the public interest in bringing litigation to an end after fair opportunity has been afforded to present all issues of law and fact. Beaver v. Taylor, 93 U.S. 46, 23 L.Ed. 797; Allis v. United States, 155 U.S. 117, 122, 123, 15 S.Ct. 36, 39 L.Ed. 91; United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 236 U.S. 512, 529, 35 S.Ct. 298, 59 L.Ed. 696; Guerini Stone Co. v. Carlin Construction Co., 248 U.S. 334, 348, 39 S.Ct. 102, 63 L.Ed. 275; Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Minds, 250 U.S. 368, 375, 39 S.Ct. 531, 63 L.Ed. 1039; Burns v. United States, 274 U.S. 328, 336, 47 S.Ct. 650, 71 L.Ed. 1077;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1106 cases
  • Capote v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 10, 2020
    ...errors that "seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings," United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. [157] at 160, 56 S.Ct. 391, 80 L.Ed. 555 [(1936)]. In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be "used sparingl......
  • Reynolds v. State Of Ala., CR-07-0443
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 1, 2010
    ...United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S. Ct. 1038, 1046, 84 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985), quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160, 56 S. Ct. 391, 392, 80 L. Ed. 555 (1936).'"Knight v. State, 675 So. 2d 487, 496 (Ala. Crim. App. 19 95)." Ex parte Sharp, [Ms. 1080959, December 4, 200......
  • Knight v. State, CR-93-1974
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • July 7, 1995
    ..." United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1046, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160, 56 S.Ct. 391, 392, 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936). Here, the integrity of the judicial proceedings were affected. It is hard to imagine a situation that impacts mo......
  • Lane v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 29, 2020
    ...errors that ‘seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings,’ United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. [157], at 160, 56 S.Ct. 391, 80 L.Ed. 555 [(1936)]. In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be ‘used sparing......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • General principles
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Federal Criminal Practice
    • April 30, 2022
    ...to evidence rulings). An objection is necessary as a matter of fairness to the court and government. United States v. Atkinson , 297 U.S. 157, 159 (1936). It also allows the district court to consider all relevant arguments in making a ruling and preserves the issue for appeal. Failure to r......
  • Constitutional law - First Circuit rules constructive amendment of indictment not a structural error - United States v. Brandao.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 42 No. 2, March 2009
    • March 22, 2009
    ...1137-38 (2004) (outlining plain-error test). (28.) United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993) (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 (29.) See also supra note 2 (discussing structural errors and standard of review). Compare United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 632-33 ......
  • Scaling Waller: How Courts Have Eroded the Sixth Amendment Public Trial Right
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 59-2, 2009
    • Invalid date
    ...v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 444 (1944))). 247. Olano, 507 U.S at 736 (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 (1936)).248. Id. at 732-37; see also Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997).249. Olano, 507 U.S. at 733-34 ("Waiver is diffe......
  • Daniel Levitas, Scaling Waller: How Courts Have Eroded the Sixth Amendment Public Trial Right
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 59-2, 2009
    • Invalid date
    ...Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 444 (1944))). 247 Olano, 507 U.S at 736 (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 (1936)). 248 Id. at 732-37; see also Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997). 249 Olano, 507 U.S. at 733-34 ("Waiver is ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT