U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1969

James T. Benn v. Julius Sankin, James t.benn v. Joseph A. Garfield, 5410 Connecticut Ave. Corp. v. Julius Sankin, Joseph Pardo v. Julius Sankin

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided May 28, 1969 · Bazelon, Burger, McGowan, Per Curiam

410 F.2d 1060 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. John G. Davies, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Bernard S. Cohen, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants., Mr. Edward L. Genn, Washington, D. C., for appellee Sankin., Mr. Benj. W. Dulany, Washington, D. C., for appellee Garfield in No. 21,957.

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Robert Lepkowski v. United States Department of the Treasury (D.C. Cir. 1986)
Ralph Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc. (D.C. Cir. 1975)
American Title Insurance v. Shawmut Bank of Rhode Island, N.A. (District Court, D. Rhode Island 1993)
Mariner Water Renaturalizer of Washington, Inc. v. Aqua Purification Systems, Inc. (D.C. Cir. 1981)
Washington Mobilization Committee v. Burtell M. Jefferson, Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 1980)
Cohen v. Surrey, Karasik & Morse (District Court, District of Columbia 1977)
Bennett v. Kiggins (D.C. 1977)
Town Center Management Corp. v. Chavez (D.C. 1977)
Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int. (District Court, District of Columbia 1974)
Marguerite Irwin v. West End Development Company, a Colorado Corporation (10th Cir. 1973)
Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc. (District Court, District of Columbia 1973)
Tully v. Mott Supermarkets, Inc. (District Court, D. New Jersey 1972)
Holloway v. Bristol-Myers Corporation (District Court, District of Columbia 1971)

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

PER CURIAM:

These consolidated appeals are from a judgment of the District Court entered after a protracted trial to the court which culminated in lengthy findings of fact and conclusions of law. 1 These are included in a careful and comprehensive opinion by Judge Jones reported at 281 F.Supp. 524 (D.D.C. 1968). We are unpersuaded that the findings of fact are erroneous, or that the conclusions drawn from them are incorrect. Our affirmance of the judgment entered requires no elaboration of reasons beyond that set forth in the District Court’s opinion.

Subsequent to the entry of judgment, a motion for a new trial was made on the basis of newly discovered evidence; and it is now urged upon us that the trial court abused its discretion in denying that motion and that a remand should be made for reopening of the record and reconsideration. We do not agree. The evidence proffered with the motion is of dubious significance at best and, in any event, appears to be far from newly discovered. By the usual standards applicable to the exercise of discretion in this area, we see nothing remotely approaching abuse.

Affirmed.

. In No. 21,957, appellee Joseph Garfield urges dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction alternatively to affirmance on the merits in respect of the subject matter of a cross-complaint filed against him in the District Court proceedings by appellant Benn. In view of the disposition we make of these appeals, we do not pursue this jurisdictional claim.

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