General

Simeon PORESKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis C. PIERCE, Sr., and Louis C. Pierce, Jr., Defendants-Appellees

64 F.2d 1018·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1933

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

Simeon PORESKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis C. PIERCE, Sr., and Louis C. Pierce, Jr., Defendants-Appellees. No. 75. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. April 3, 1933. Simeon Poresky, in pro. per. Arthur B. O’Keefe and Harry M. French, both of New Haven, Conn., for appellees. Before MANTON, L. HAND, and SWAN, Circuit Judges. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. We have examined the printed record and supplemental typewritten transcript of the testimony submitted by the appellant, who has appeared in person, with care, because he, without legal training, has been obliged to argue his own appeal. After such careful examination, we are forced to the conclusion that the motion to set aside the jury’s verdict was properly denied. We find no errors in the trial which justify our reversing the judgment entered for the appellees. Judgment affirmed.