General

LEAPLEY v. MATTHEWS

50 F.2d 1016·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit·1931

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

LEAPLEY v. MATTHEWS. No. 5111. Court of Appeals of District of Columbia. Submitted May 6, 1931. Decided June 1, 1931. Wm. F. Kelly and P. J. J. Nicolaides, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error. G. Lyle Hughes, of Washington, D. C., for defendant in error. Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices. [MAJORITY — HITZ, Associate Justice.] HITZ, Associate Justice. The only error assigned to which exception was taken in the court below is the third: “The Court erred in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for new trial, because the finding of fact is contrary to the evidence, the weight of the evidence and the law.” “According to federal practice this is not assignable as error.” Whelan v. Welch, 50 App. D. C. 174, 269 F. 689, 690, and eases cited; Preleau v. U. S., 50 App. D. C. 287, 271 F. 361; Hill v. U. S., 22 App. D. C. 396. The judgment is therefore affirmed, with costs. Affirmed.