U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1966

McSparran v. Subers

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided February 18, 1966

356 F.2d 983 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Norman Paul Harvey, Liebert, Harvey, Herting & Short, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant Hanigan, etc., Joseph G. Manta, Esq., LaBrum & Doak, Philadelphia, Pa. (James M. Marsh, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant Hinkle, etc., Harry Nixon, Philadelphia, Pa. (Michael A. Foley, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant Tyler, etc., Kenneth Syken, Richter, Lord, Toll & Cavanaugh, Philadelphia, Pa. (B. Nathaniel Richter, Jack J. Bernstein, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant McSparran. Counsel for appellee Hani-gan and others.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision. The 4 that cite it most often are listed here.

Rubinstein v. Music Sales Corporation (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
RAZAK v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2024)
Hicks v. United States (District Court, District of Columbia 1973)
Washington Hospital Center v. Butler (D.C. Cir. 1967)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

We find that as to the merits, with particular reference to the primary questions of liability of appellants, the first trial of these suits was without substantial error and that the issues were properly submitted to the jury.

We further find that the refusal of the trial judge to mold the verdicts in these causes after the first trial thereof was within his discretion.

The judgments in these cases will be affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.