U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1947

Martin v. Staples

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided November 10, 1947

164 F.2d 106; 82 U.S. App. D.C. 370 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Louis E. Spiegler, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Sol M. Alpher, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. John P.' Labofish, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Joseph George Dondero, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Mason (W. Va. 1974)
Walter F. O'Brien v. Russell C. Harrington, Commissioner of Internal Revenue (D.C. Cir. 1956)
Michelle Donahue v. DHS (D.C. Cir. 2023)
Roe Village, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners (Kan. 1965)

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.

This appeal was taken from a jury’s verdict before judgment had been entered. It is therefore premature and must be dismissed. St. Louis Amusement Co. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 8 Cir., 156 F.2d 400; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 58, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. However, we have examined the record and find that the judgment would be affirmed if it were before us. Appellant is the beneficiary of a will which has been denied probate because the jury found that the will had been procured by undue influence, duress, or coercion. Appellant, conceding .that thé definitions of undue influence, duress and coercion in the instructions of the trial judge to the jury were correct, urges that there was no evidence to support the jury’s verdict. ■ We find that the evidence was ample.

Appeal dismissed.

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