Milton S. Koblitz v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 266 F.2d 320 (2d Cir. 1959). · Go Syfert
Search
Milton S. Koblitz v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 266 F.2d 320 (2d Cir. 1959). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lawrence J. Merovka, L. J. Dugger, & Robert G. Kinghorn v. Renwick L. Allen, 410 F.2d 1307 (10th Cir. 1969)
How cited ↗
Cited for
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Milton S. Koblitz, Plaintiff-Appellatn
v.
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
25331.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Apr 28, 1959.
Published opinion
266 F.2d 320
Published

266 F.2d 320

Milton S. KOBLITZ, Plaintiff-Appellatn,
v.
BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 180, Docket 25331.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued March 3, 1959.
Decided April 28, 1959.

David M. Palley, New York City (Nathan B. Kogan and Louis Boehm, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.

John D. Calhoun, New York City (Cravath, Swaine & Moore and John F. Hunt, Jr., New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.

Before MEDINA and HINCKS, Circuit Judges, and MATHES, District Judge.[1]

PER CURIAM.

[*~320–321]1

We affirm on the opinion of Judge Bryan, reported at 164 F.Supp. 367. In addition to the estoppel of the former judgment we find that the basic point now argued as to whether the source of appellant's claim is derivative or direct, was determined in the appeal to this Court from the adverse judgment in the prior action. Rieser v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 2 Cir., 1955, 228 F.2d 563. Thus appellant is bound not only by a direct but also by a collateral estoppel.

2

Affirmed.

1

United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation