Malm v. United States Lines Company, 489
| Decision Date | 05 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | Docket 31199.,No. 489,489 |
| Citation | 378 F.2d 941 |
| Parties | Elof MALM, Appellee, v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Daniel J. Dougherty, New York City (Charles N. Fiddler, Kirlin Campbell & Keating, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas E. P. McElligott, Fields, Rosen, McElligott & Auslander, New York City, for appellee.
Before WATERMAN, SMITH and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.
We affirm on the basis of Judge Weinfeld's opinion in the District Court, reported at 269 F.Supp. 731 (S.D.N.Y. 1967).1
1 Since neither party on appeal raised the issue of maintenance and cure, we have not considered that portion of Judge Weinfeld's opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
21 cases
-
Lusby v. T.G. & Y. Stores, Inc.
...the claim on which they found liability. See Malm v. United States Lines Co., 269 F.Supp. 731, 731-32 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd per curiam, 378 F.2d 941 (2d Cir.1967). ...
-
Ward v. City of San Jose
...Royal Netherlands Steamship Co., 508 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir.1975); Malm v. United States Lines Co., 269 F.Supp. 731 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 378 F.2d 941 (2nd Cir.1967) ("Inconsistent jury verdicts upon different counts or claims are not an anomaly in the law, which at times recognizes a jury's right......
-
International Wood Processors v. Power Dry, Civ. No. 82-2115-14.
...on the relevant issues as submitted...." And in Malm v. United States Lines Co., 269 F.Supp. 731 (S.D.N.Y.) (emphasis added), aff'd, 378 F.2d 941 (2d Cir.1967), the court stated that "inconsistent jury verdicts upon different counts or claims are not an anomaly in the law which at times rec......
-
Brink's Inc. v. City of New York
...351, 356, 298 N.Y.S.2d 499, 506 (1969). 16 Malm v. United States Lines, Co., 269 F.Supp. 731, 731-32 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd per curiam, 378 F.2d 941 (2d Cir. 1976). See also Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 393, 52 S.Ct. 189, 190, 76 L.Ed. 356 (1932) (Holmes, J.); Jayne v. Mason & Dixon Line......
Request a trial to view additional results