Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
L. C. Fuller, Jr., Lumber Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Chester Herman Anglin, Appellee.l. C. Fuller, Jr., Lumber Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Mrs. Grace Robbins, Administratrix of the Estate of Baileyrobbins, Deceased, Appellee.l. C. Fuller, Jr., Lumber Co., Inc., Appellant, v. G. C. Milligan and John T. Ridgeway, D.b.a. Milligan &ridgeway Funeral Home, Appellees
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit. - 244 F.2d 72
April 30, 1957
Ortmeyer, Bamberger, Ortmeyer & Foreman, Evansville, Ind., Miller Manier, Nashville, Tenn., for appellant.
Hooker, Keeble, Dodson & Harris, Nashville, Tenn., Aaron Brown, Paris, Tenn., S. C. Lewis, N. A. Link, Dover, Tenn., for appellees.
Before MARTIN, McALLISTER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
These consolidated appeals grow out of a head-on collision between a trailer truck and a hearse, which occurred in Indiana in 1954. Trial was had in the Middle District of Tennessee, the residence of appellees, resulting in verdicts in their favor against the appellant truck owner, a corporation domiciled in Alabama.
The appellant complains of the district court's failure to grant its motion to transfer the actions to the Southern District of Indiana in accordance with 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a), and of several alleged errors committed by the court before and during the trial.
The question of whether to transfer the actions to Indiana was one entrusted to the district court's discretion, of which there was no abuse under the circumstances disclosed by the record. After careful examination of the other matters raised by able counsel for the appellant, we are unable to conclude that either alone or in combination any of them constituted prejudicial error affecting substantial rights.
The judgments of the district court are accordingly affirmed.