Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Jeff D. SIMS, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, 1932 — 54 F.2d 1083 · caselaw · US
General
Jeff D. SIMS, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
54 F.2d 1083·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1932
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Jeff D. SIMS, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 5918.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 5, 1932.
Joseph M. Bearman, of Memphis, Tenn. (George J. Coleman, of Memphis, Tenn., on the brief), for appellant.
Bailey Walsh, of Memphis, Tenn. (land-say B. Phillips and David Hanover, both of Memphis, Tenn., and William Wolff Smith and A. Hinderliter, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for the United States.
Before MOORMAN, HICKS, and HICKENLOOPER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This action was brought to recover the benefits under a policy of war risk insurance. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence the court below directed a verdict for the defendant. The sole question was whether plaintiff became totally and permanently disabled during the life of the policy. The record is unsatisfactory. The medical witnesses were evidently equipped to testify definitely upon the obvious points in the ease. Whether they did or not does not appear, but certain it is that their evidence as condensed in the hill of exceptions leaves much for speculation. Interpreting it, however, most favorably to the plaintiff, as we think the law requires, we are not satisfied that it was too unsubstantial to submit to .the jury.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.