Cases

ENGEL, Circuit Judge. Robert J. Lytle, the original plaintiff in the action before the district court, brought suit in June of 1969 against Freedom International Carriers, S. A. et al (Freedom), seeking $1,000,000 in damages for injuries he had sustained while employed upon Freedom’s ship, the “Me-liton,” as a longshoreman. Lytle’s complaint in admiralty alleged two causes of action, the first charging Freedom with negligenc

519 F.2d 129 Robert J. LYTLE, Plaintiff,v.FREEDOM INTERNATIONAL CARRIER, S. A., et al.Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff,v.AMERICAN GRAIN TRIMMERS, INC., Third-PartyDefendant-Fourth-Party Plaintiff- Appellee,v.OSBORN-LANGE, INC., Fourth-Party Defendant-Appellee.Appeal of EMPLOYERS' SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE CO.,Fourth-Party Defendant. No. 74-1470. United States Co

EDWARDS, Circuit Judge. After two appellate hearings, multiple briefings, and a remand to the District Court, this patent appeal is finally before the court on the merits. The history of this case is long, complex and now basically irrelevant to the current appeal. Nonetheless, we recite it

Per Curiam. I. Appellant, in his first proposition of law, essentially asserts that the evidence presented at trial did not attain the requisite degree of proof needed to support his conviction. Our consideration of this proposition is limited to an examination of the record at the trial to determine whether the evidence presented, “which, if believed, would convince the average mind

This appeal is before us on questions of law from an order, judgment and decree of the Probate Court of Cuyahoga County. The action in the Probate Court was brought jointly by the guardian of Maria Celeste Roseman Lloyd, who is the minor beneficiary of a testamentary trust, and by Maria Celeste Roseman Lloyd, individually, by her guardian. The action was for a declaratory judgment interpreting the construction and legal effect of the trust created under the will of Charles E. Roseman, Jr., de

OPINION By HUNSICKER, J. This is an original action in mandamus, by The 12501 Superior Corporation, herein called “corporation,” the operator of a coin-operated automatic laundry, against the City of East Cleveland and various officials thereof, herein called “city,” wherein the corporation asks this court to order the city to issue a use permit free from any restrictions. The corporat

Andrews, Chief Referee. This case raises a question about the disposition of unexpended income held by the trustee of a testamentary trust created for the benefit of the testator’s daughter. The case also presents questions relating to Section 2107.06, Revised Code, commonly referred to as the Mort-main Statute. The basic facts, as stipulated or admitted by the pleadings, are as follows. I

Morris Hamburger and Rachel Hamburger, his wife, owners, as tenants by the entireties, of certain adjoining houses located on North Broadway in Baltimore City and known as 1801, 1803, 1805, 1807 and 1813, filed their bill of complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against Morris Kalavan and Jacob Klotzman, alleging that defendants had on July 6th, 1939, through E.T. Newell Co., Inc., purchased said properties at $1500 each at public auction after the same had been advertised by New

14 F.Supp. 584 (1935) UNITED STATES v. FLEGENHEIMER. District Court, D. New Jersey. October 22, 1935. *585 F. W. H. Adams, U. S. Atty., for the Southern District of New York, and J. Howard Carter, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., both of New York City, John Burke, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., and William F. Smith, Asst. U. S. A