Elof Malm v. United States Lines Co., 378 F.2d 941 (2d Cir. 1967). · Go Syfert
Search
Elof Malm v. United States Lines Co., 378 F.2d 941 (2d Cir. 1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Davignon v. Hodgson (ca1, 2008-04-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Davignon v. Hodgson
1st Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Malm v. United States Lines Co., 269 F.Supp. 731, 731-32 (S.D.N.Y.1967), aff'd, 378 F.2d 941 (2d Cir.1967) (recognizing jury’s right to “idiosyncratic position provided the challenged verdict is based on the evidence and the law”).
cited Cited "see" Webb v. GAF Corp.
N.D.N.Y. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Malm v. United States Lines Co., 269 F.Supp. 731, 731-32 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 378 F.2d 941 (2d Cir.1967) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Lusby v. T.G. & Y. Stores, Inc.
10th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
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).
cited Cited "see" Lusby v. Stores, Inc.
10th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
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)
cited Cited "see, e.g." Ayala v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1972 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Malm v. United States Lines Co., 269 F.Supp. 731 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d on opinion below, 378 F.2d 941 (2 Cir. 1967).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Elof Malm
v.
United States Lines Company
31199.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jun 5, 1967.
378 F.2d 941
Published

378 F.2d 941

Elof MALM, Appellee,
v.
UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 489, Docket 31199.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued May 31, 1967.
Decided June 5, 1967.

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.

PER CURIAM:

1

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