Michigan Bell Tel. Co. v. Suddeth, 172 F.2d 223 (6th Cir. 1949). · Go Syfert
Search
Michigan Bell Tel. Co. v. Suddeth, 172 F.2d 223 (6th Cir. 1949). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Manosky v. Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyard, Inc. (ca1, 1949-11-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Manosky v. Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyard, Inc. (2×)
1st Cir. · 1949 · signal: see · confidence high
See, for instance, Smith v. Cudahy Packing Co., D.C.Minn.1947, 76 F.Supp. 575, 579 , appeal dismissed 8 Cir., 1949, 172 F.2d 223 ; Sadler v. W.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, a Corporation
v.
Norman SUDDETH
No. 10719.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Jan 17, 1949.
172 F.2d 223
Lacey, Scroggie, Lacey & Buchanan, of Detroit, Mich., for appellant., Earl D. Ross and Carl F. Davidson, both of Detroit, Mich., for appellee.
Published
PER CURIAM.

This cause was heard on the transcript of record, briefs and argument of counsel, and the court being of the opinion that there was substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury, and that therefore the court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto, and it further appearing that there is no reversible error upon the record, it is therefore ordered and adjudged-that the judgment appealed from, entered by the District Court on January 23, 1948, be and the same is in all things affirmed.