1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 356 F.2d
  5. 356 F.2d 983 (1966)
 

McSPARRAN v. SUBERS

Nos. 15476-15480.

356 F.2d 983 (1966)

Stella McSPARRAN, Administratrix of the Estate of Ignatius Peter Kane, Deceased, Appellant, v. Edward Thomas SUBERS. Stella McSPARRAN, Administratrix of the Estate of Ignatius Peter Kane, Deceased v. John HANIGAN, Individually and Trading as the Hanigan Construction Company, Walter Hinkle, Individually and Trading as the Hinkle Excavation Company and Robert R. Tyler, Individually and Trading as the Robert R. Tyler and Co. and John McShain, Inc. (Third-Party Plaintiff) v. WILLIAM H. WALTERS & SONS, INC. (Third-Party Defendant). Stella McSparran, Administratrix of the Estate of Ignatius Peter Kane, Deceased, Appellant in No. 15477. John Hanigan, Individually and Trading as the Hanigan Construction Company, Appellant in No. 15478. Walter Hinkle, Individually and Trading as the Hinkle Excavation Company, Appellant in No. 15479. Robert R. Tyler, Individually and Trading as the Robert R. Tyler Company, Appellant in No. 15480.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Decided February 18, 1966.

Rehearing Denied March 11, 1966.

Rehearing Denied April 5, 1966.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Norman Paul Harvey, Liebert, Harvey, Herting & Short, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant Hanigan, etc.

Joseph G. Manta, Esq., LaBrum & Doak, Philadelphia, Pa. (James M. Marsh, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant Hinkle, etc.

Harry Nixon, Philadelphia, Pa. (Michael A. Foley, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant Tyler, etc.

Kenneth Syken, Richter, Lord, Toll & Cavanaugh, Philadelphia, Pa. (B. Nathaniel Richter, Jack J. Bernstein, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant McSparran. Counsel for appellee Hanigan and others.

Before McLAUGHLIN, FORMAN and GANEY, Circuit Judges.

Rehearing Denied in No. 15479 March 11, 1966.

Rehearing Denied in No. 15480 April 5, 1966.

PER CURIAM.

We find that as to the merits, with particular reference to the primary questions of liability of appellants, the first trial of these suits was without substantial error and that the issues were properly submitted to the jury.

We further find that the refusal of the trial judge to mold the verdicts in these causes after the first trial thereof...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases