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.
UNITED STATES v. LA FAVOR et al., 1934 — 72 F.2d 827 · caselaw · US
General
UNITED STATES v. LA FAVOR et al.
72 F.2d 827·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1934
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
UNITED STATES v. LA FAVOR et al.
No. 7433.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 7, 1934.
J. Charles Dennis, IT. S. Atty., and John Ambler, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash., Owen P. Hughes, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Tacoma, Wash., and Warren G. Magnuson, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Seattle, Wash. (Will G. Beardslee, Director, Bureau of War Risk Litigation, of Washington, D. C., Randolph C. Shaw, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., and Tom De Wolfe, Sp. Atty., Bureau of War Risk Litigation, of Seattle, Wash., of counsel), for the United States.
A. W. Newman and John T. McCutcheon, both of Tacoma, Wash., for appellees.
Before WILBUR, SAWTELLE, and GARRECHT, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — WILBUR, Circuit Judge.]
WILBUR, Circuit Judge.
The government appeals from a judgment in favor of the administratrix of the estate of Charles V. La Favor upon a war risk insurance policy. Plaintiff, in order to prove total and permanent disability at the time of the lapsing of the policy and thereafter until the death of the insured, offered in evidence certain X-ray photographs. The government objected to the introduction of these X-ray photographs on the ground that no proper foundation was laid. The operator who took the pictures was not called as a witness. The doctor at whose instance the X-ray photographs were taken testified that the pictures were not taken by himself but by a man upstairs who did his X-ray work, but the insured was referred to this man and that the picture was sent down by the patient as soon as it was developed, within five or ten minutes. This was not a sufficient identification of the picture. Ligon v. Allen, 157 Ky. 101, 162 S. W. 536, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 842.
Reversed.