JAMES E. SCRIVENER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

5th Cir. | 1969-03-19
No. 26898
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
409 F.2d 1356 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1969) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, correctly stated the applicable law and were fair and adequate.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff James E. Scrivener brought a FELA action against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company. The appeal concerns alleged errors in the …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
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.

. 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.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw