# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Cosentino v. Royal Netherlands Steamship Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385604_0185%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1968 - **Citation:** 393 U.S. 977 ## Text b ‘ Vets Wows FILED LIBRARY | SUPREME COURT.(I). & 7 ‘JUN 10. 1988 a: Supreme Cmut of the Huited Sten October Term 1968 —_ 30 (. : FRED COSENTINO, ¢ ’ Petitioner, ie osalust : . ‘THE ROYAL NETHERLANDS STEAMSHIP Ra COMPANY, Respondent. PETITION FOR WRIT OF. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE © SECOND CIRCUIT e- JACOB RassNzr, ' Attorney for Petitioner. . f s & \ INDEX im, 88 | .. - PAGE ee eae vc aeeauins whew | 1 - Juri8diction of this Court .....cccisccciveccscvees 1 “Questions. Presented a és af St eee ie 6 NEE : en 2 me Reasons for Granting the Writ AEE EN Ainge 2 ‘de es er raed 2 rd Argument (hekibhahwis dwehatadoesaseenee we ee eens 5 - Pomt I—There was no legal or aitiant basis for the. learned Court below substituting -his- evaluation Ae * of the injuries for that. of the jury cekeebewat en 8 ‘- Pomr II—The Court erroneously disregarded the applicable controlling law, as enunciated by this honorable Court in the case-of Berner v. British Commonwealth. Pacific Airlines, Ltd.,. 346 Paes 532 (1965) : edhe one sua Veuecaneey gteeseeees 9 Port I1I—Ordering the question ¢ of liability retried ieee, a reversible OPPOF 2 ins we tesewe Rese psy tee ss ooo of — Partieular requisites, tests, and factors er \ wy. 23 if Coritlusion .;.:...... Renee Seserpir op aree eras "30 par ee | | Becca im : ; Opinion of United States Court ‘of Appeals a cee | Judgment of Affirmance ......... (anew me ; 35. - Order Denying. Petition for Sastieie eo pune 36 ~. Order, En Bane, nee Petition for Rehearing 37 iinet jac a ee — ——— nae 1 Cases Cited . eee fee PAGE : Alison’ v: . United States, 251 F. 2a 74 (ea Cir. 1958) a Atchison, T. &SF. R. Co. v. Gufierres (1926), 30 Ariz. 491, PE Bick eee c dba peek ca Min neko nveres eo 6,18 -Adlantic Coast. Line R. Co. v. Bennett (1958 Oa. oe BG) B01 FS 908. vce. e sees cet et ene ceric GM. Belles +d Pan Ry. » 3190S. 350, 353, 354, fe ee ee eee 12 Berner v. British Commonwealth Pacific Aitlines, ¢o ios Ltd, 346 F.2 532 (1965) pee LOEWE Kheeneberns es ; 9 Boldurian v. A/B. Svenska Amerika Linien, 246 si at Supp. 413 (1965) cues Ohad ee dOe ONS RaKaed ess - § Brewer v. Second Baptist ( Church (1948), 32 Cal. 2d. * - © f. 4: Be ee oreer ren rrr y reer 6,9 Bryan v. ‘United States, 338 U.S. 552, 70 S. Ct. 317, 94 L.Ed. (335 22.6... NECbRNRSE ERMA ANOS EAN ee* 31 | Burton v. Wilmington & W. R. Cus, 84 N.€. 192 . 7 Camarow v. Levy (1952 Sup.. App. T. ); 115 N.Y.S. DE ccksvndenaasee Mx ckessnctincdcsauuereuen «6 - | Cannon v. Krabowitch (1959), dA NJ. nee 93, 148 pS” SER Ieee een Oe 5.00 OR 7 Caskey v. Village of Wayland; die F.2d 1004 (1967) 27,28 Chesevski v. Strawbridge & Clothier, 25 F. Supp. 325 +5 - Cote v. Allen (1957), 50 Wash. 2584, 313P2693.... 7 Cromling v. Pittsburgh & Lake ‘Erie RR. Co., 537 es Se BE CD eo saserccdserteascesevsucccers - 28 Cromwell v. County of Sae, 94 U. S. 351, 24 L. la. 195 a seen eee eeeteeeeeeeeeeereeeeeees ake Uoiee 11 : a ‘PAGE . Dagnetic v. ‘Long Island Railroad Company, 289 F.2d 2 TIT (VIEL) voce ese te eee eee eee ees rar o> 10, 12, 27 _ Darbrow, y. MeDade (1958 CA3 Pa.); 255 F.2d: | 610 rete eees Wis bes Kah dee Gros h cee bi ets 10+ 14, 18, 27 Delaney v. New York Cent. R. *: 68 F. Supp. 70. - 10 “Dodson v. Raker, 5 PRD. 368 teseaay Fea cuen sos 5 Downie v. ‘United States Lines Co, 359 F. 2d 344 Ce) eee Plishewaleswenate oe Warrar v. Wheeler (1906 CAL NH) 145 B.. 462 ....... 18 'First-Mechanies Nat. Bank v. Katz (1955) 36 NJ. - Super. 552, 116 A.2d 644 ...5...0...00, eae 7 Gasoline Products Co., Ine. v. Champlin Refining Co. i _ 283 U.S. 494, 51 S. Ct. BOR re Pee 3,14, 20 Gentekés v. San ‘Francisco (1958) 163 Cal. App. 2d 691, 329 P.2d 943 . 1... eee ee eee eee eee eee eee 6 Glazer v. Glazer, 374 F.2d 390 (ser Rises aa ce ee Guilford Glazer v. Jerome S. Glazer and Louis A. | "Glazer, we F. Supp. 476 (1968), pinveedsabewene's ' 6 Hiltz v. “Atlantic Ref. Co. (1945 Ca. 3 Pa. ) 151 Fed. 2 Hirsh v. Manley (1956) 81 Arts: 94, 300 P2d 588 ... Huddleston v. Crain Brothers, Inc., 183 F. Supp. 874 ‘International Breweries, Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., eegmete August 3, 1966, 364 F. 2d 261 .... a 11 LC. J ames Motor Co. v. Wetmore (1980), 36 Ariz. 382, 286 P 180.0... eeeeseeeeseeeseeseeeens 7 C064) cust oee eee fi i Stn eee 6 J efferson School of Social Science v. Subversive Act. Con. Bd., 331 F.2d 76 (1963) ......... Eee if Johnson v. Lewis (1960) 21 NC. 797; 112 S.E. 2d 7 Soo Bick he shae hho e eee haseeeanes isntantanwel Banc. | Juliano + v. Abeles (1985) 114 NIL 510, 177 A 4. P 22 Korbut v. Keystone. Shipping Co., 3380 F. 2d 352 Wee ARR Pe Pe Per ree er eer er Te Tee a | ee Kovacovich v..Phelps Dodge Corp. A948) 62 Ariz. ~. 193" eee eee st ete Picea C8 edi wne ae or ‘cities. v. Kurn, 327 U.S, 645, 66S. Ct. 740 ...... 9, | Lawlor v. National Screen Bérviee, 349) U. S. 322, 326, 75 S. Ct. 865, BOT on. eee eee eee eee eee eee eeees ~ 10 Lind v. Schenley Industries, Inc., 278. F. 2d 79,. atk. denied 364 U.S. 835, 81 S. Ct. 58 ...........e0c0. Soe | Lopoczyk v. Chester A. Poling, Inc, 152 F.2d ‘st ae oe Mangigan v. Toolin (1950) 77 RI. 51,73 A2d 41... 7 | Mason v. Mathiasen Tanker Industries, Inorpo- “gebed 908 FSi 26 (1982)... .5......66.00... 5 May Department Stores Co. v. Bell, 61 F.2d 830°. ; 3, 27 SI Peer obno subd ewubarese vs eh 6 , ~The Noah’ Ark v. Bentley & Felton Corporation, 2 , i - 292 F.2d 437 (1961) oxen Pere Tet. Corer ey oo ‘5 \ Norfolk Soyihern R. Co. v. Ferebee- (1915) 238 U.S. a 269, 59 L. ed. 1303, 35 S. Ct. 81 .....-- Lekeaes 6, 14 27 \ = of Justices (1911) 207 Mass. 606, 94 N. E. 846 21 | Palmer v. Kelly (1938) 52 Ariz. 98, 79P2344...... 6 ' Panto v. Safeway Trails, Ine., 260 F. Supp. 670 oo (1965) see veeeeeeceeeeegeg ste teee nee eees u R. D. Wood Company Vv. Phoenix Stee! Corporation, ee | 887 F.2d 921 «.,....- Semele decks eeu 13 ' Robinson v.. Payne (1923) 99 N.J. ” 135, 122 é: 882 22 Rosa v. City of Chester, Pa., 278 F.2d 876... bereees Fe a : ._* Rossman v. Newton (1934) 112 N.J.L. 261, 170 A-230 7. | —_ 7 Oo POMP eee Bee ree * ~ “Cains Coint uf the united States ; October Term 1968 , No. FRED CosenTINo, Petitioner, against Tue Roya. NETHERLANDS’ SreamsHie Company, ‘Respondent. s\ ww PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT | Petitioner prays that a Writ of Certiorari issue to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals | for the Second Circuit entered in the above entitled case on January 18, 1968. Opinion Below The opinion of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, dated January 18, 1966. The opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is not as yet reported and is printed herein at pages 32 to 34, . Jurisdiction of this Court The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254 (1). Questions Presented 1. Should a Trial Judge be permitted to order a con- ditional remittitur when he finds that the jury verdict is in his opinion excessive without a finding that the verdict shocked his conscience or was based on prejudice? 2. Should a Trial Judge exert pressure on a plaintiff to accept a reduction of the amount of damages found by a jury, by orderist¥a retrial of the issue of liability, as well as damages, if plaintiff should refuse to accept the re- duction, when, in fact, the issue of liability has been fully and properly determined on the merits and has become res adjudicata? Reasons for Granting the Writ The questions presented raise issues: which must be determined by trial judges in the Federal Judiciary very frequently during the course of the ever expanding work ‘ load of the Federal Courts. It is of importance that these issues be clearly determined by the Court for the proper and uniform administration of justice in the Federal Ju- dicial system. A holding by this Court on the obligation: . of a Federal Judge to order a retrial of only those issues in a case deemed affected by error would eliminate a sub- stantial amount of needless litigation involving issues previously determined which if otherwise retried would constitute a denial and miscarriage of justice in violation — of constitutional guarantees of trial by jury. The decision by the Court below is in conflict with uniform and well established law and in violation of the constitutional rights’ of all personal injury victims to a trial by jury. - The decision by the Court below constitutes a violation of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution « the United States. > ee vu aaa * - ores settle atie te ‘e 7 SEED ITE SEI OE IO APY ~ Cote v. Allen (1957) 50 Wash. 2 584, 313 P2 693. ee a a a a |e ie POINT I . There was no legal or factual basis for theJearned | Court below substituting: ‘his evaluation of the i injuries for that of the j jury. | Judge Dooling summarised the evidence as to damages as. follows (83a): “The amount of the damage award if. different problems, Plaintiff was hospitalized with the right knee injury frony November 15 through Deotnber, 9, 1961, and on November 27, 1961, conservative treat- ment of the knee not being. successful, the prepatella bursa was excised, some 40 or 50 superficial and deep sutures being used. There were 46 office visits for treatment ending April 6, 1962, and plaintiff used crutches until mid-Febrnary 1962,’ Plaintiff lost four months. and four days from work. His earnings. in > 1960 were $5,000 to $5,500 and he had averaged $4,000 _ or $5,000 a year over a five year, period. His direct -— earnings loss approximated $1,800. There was no. claim of: lasting impairment ef earning capacity. Plaintiff returned to his regular work on March 4, ‘1962, and he has lost no time since his return by rea- son of the injury. Medical and hospital expenses were, based on a qualified estimate, $1,269.50. ”’ The appellant testified. that after being totally disabled until the middle of March, that he had to be put on light work for about a year. He testified that he still had stiff- ness of the leg, éven up to the time of the trial; strain on picking up weight from the ground; fear of the leg buckling _ _* because of loss of strength and weakness; and, still suffered - . from pain on putting any weight on the leg (38a-39a). _ After describing the nature and extent of the injury ° and treatment, Dr. Mario F. Tagliagambe concluded that the condition’ was permanent ( 2a to 32a—42a-58a). \\ = ». . aaa se mae a aaa pee . ae eS ae = : — gs : n that of the liability of the defendant.’ The requisite sepa- rateness and independence were held. to exist so as to warrant the limitation, under the circumstances involved in the cases cited hereunder; but in other cases a contrary _ conclusion has been reached. The Court in the case of Korbut v. Keystone Shipping, Co., 380 F.2d 352 (1967) in treating with a jury’s verdict - on the amount of damages stated at page 354: ‘It is equally clear that the District Court substi- i tuted its judgment for that of the jury’s. That it is a violation of the Seventh Amendment to the Consti- tution of the United States for a court to so invade the province of a jury is so fundamental that it need not be supported by citation. - In approving the decision of the Trial Court, the Court below. has established a principle of law which constitutes a radical departure from uniform and well established law. The decision by the Court below ‘is in conflict with ‘its own holding in the case of Caskey v. Village of ‘Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004 (1967), wherein the Court below stated at page 1007 atk nei should not be ordered unless there has been ‘an abuse of discretion’ and the verdict ‘is - so high that it would be a denial of justice to permit it to stand.’ Dagnello v. Long. Is. R.R. Co,, supra, 289 F.2d at 806. Accord, Diapulse Corp. of America v. Birtcher Corp., 362 F.2d 736 Gs Cir.) cert. dis- & 10. United States —Norfolk Southern R. Co. v Ferebee (1915) 238 US 269, 59 L ed 1303, 35 S Ct 781; Schuerholz v Roach (1932, CA4 Va) 58 F2d 32, cert den 287 US 623, 77L ed 541, 53 S Ct 78; May Dept. Stores Co. v Bell (1932, CA8 Mo) 61 F2d 830, 32 NCCA 536; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v Bennett (1958, CA4 SC) 251. F2d 934; Darbrow v McDade (195@ CA3 Pa) 255 | F2d 610; Bass v Dehner (1937, DC NM) 21 F Supp 567; Tomp- . kins v Pilots Asso. for Bay & River Delaware (1940, DC Pa) 32 F —_ 439; Yates v Dann (1951, DC Del) 11 FRD 386. Cot oN 28 missed, 385 U.S. 801, 87 S. Ct..9, 17 L. Ed. 2d 9 (1966); La France v. New York, N.H. & H. RR. Co., 292 F.2d 649, 650° (2d Cir. 1961) (verdict will not . be modified unless ‘fantastic’) ; Wooley v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 281 F.2d 78, 80 (3d Cir. 1960) (verdict not to be disturbed unless ‘80 grossly exces- sive as to shock the judicial conscience’ so that it would be a ‘manifest abuse of discretion’ not to order . a new trial),’’— - There was no finding by the Trial Court and the record establishes the fact that nothing therein contained justifies a conclusion that the verdict of $25,000 for a man who suf- fered injury to his knee which required surgical interven- ° tion to the extent of fifty odd sutures, resulting in a partial permanent disability of the knee, was so grossly excessive as to shock the judicial conscience or that the verdict was so high that it would be a denial of justice to permit it to stand, | The record will demonstrate that the verdict rather than being high was fair and reasonable and not the result of any undue emotion on the part of the jury. This is clearly a case wherein the Court below approved the erroneous substitution of the Trial Court’s evaluation of the damages for ‘the evaluation placed by the jury. The verdict in the second trial in the amount of $1,800 constitutes proof that it was a compromise on the issue~of negligence which compromise was a foreseeable event, as pointed dut in Caskey v. Village of Wayland, supra. The question of contributory negligence does not justify ' nor constitute a basis for retrial of the question of liability. : Cromling v. Pittsburgh and Lake Erie R.R. Co., 327 F.2d 142 (1963). The legal support for this position i is that all of the au- thorities are in accord that a Judge may not substitute . his — for that of ajury. McAllister v. U. 9. A., 348 ele wees ee ee - ~ -- “a 29 U: 8. 19, 75 S. Ct. 6. A factual issue, once determined, by a jury as in the instant case may not be ordered relitigated. . The plaintiff has been eee his day in Court on the merits in that a jury verdict at twice the amount of the valuation by the trial judge “was held to constitute a ca- -pricious and arbitrary verdict but ‘a subsequent verdict in: the sum of $1,800 was not. Such a decision éstablishes that a verdict which happens to be twice that of a court’s eval-. uation is wrong, as_a matter of law, but on the contrary a - verdict for 1/10th of the Court’s evaluation is not, and should be permitted to stand. ' Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Court below was correct in holding that the jury’s finding that _the appellant was entitled to twice as much as he thought he should receive, justified the Court’s setting aside the verdict and ordering ‘a new trial. The plaintiff was, nevertheless, entitled to a direction of a verdict in‘his favor on the question of liability alone— which issue had already been decided upon the: first trial of this case on the merits in the court below; and/or ‘after | ° the second trial, in the very least, the plaintiff was entitled to an additur—assuming the trial judge’s evaluation on the basis of his conditional remittur to have been correct. It is respectfully submitted that the court below com- mitted reversible error in ordering a new trial of the ques- tion of liability, which proved to result in substantial loss to the plaintiff’s prejudice. The Court below in the second trial was in error.in re- fusing appellant’s request for a directed verdict on the question of liability in the light of the fact that the ques- tion of liability had been determined and constituted res adjudicata as to the facts of the case on the merits. 30 The Court, in the first trial, committed further reversi- ble error in ordering the question ° of contributory negli- gence to be re-tried in view of the fact that the record is devoid of a single fact which supported the charge of contributory negligence. The substance of all of the tes- » timony was that the plaintiff, aware of the dangerous condition, exercised the utmost care of which he was capa- ble in going about a slippery and dangerous and encum- bered deck and in spite of his care, his foot slipped into an’ encumberance which tripped him and caused him to fall and suffer -the grievous injuries, all of which was. proven without any substantial evidence to the contrary. The opinion by this Honorabic Court as it now stands constitutes the establishment of a doctrine that a J udge’ ~ evaluation of the damages contrary to the unanimous opin- ion of twelve jurors ‘constitutes a legal basis for. order- ing a. afew trial, not only as to the question of damages but, as to the question of liability already unquestionably and properly determined along with the question of con- tributory negligence, as to which there was no proof in the first trial, and therefore no basis for reopening the door on the subject once having been tried and final judgment having been rendered therein. ne - Conclusion Petitioner respectfully submits that the record would justify this Honorable Court in directing the entry of. judgment on the verdict of the jury in the -first trial as authorized:by § 2106 of U.S.C. 28, and as enunciated by this Court in the case of Neely v. Martin K. Eby, Construction Co., 386 U.S. 317, 87 S. Ct. 1072 (1967), where the — | stated at page 1076, 1077: ““Section 2106 of Title 28 .provides pan ‘The Supreme Court or any other court of appellate - jurisdiction may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or reverse any judgment, decree, or order of a court lawfully brought before it for review, and may re- © eee ee are . . eee ti li tan i lie lis PNET TTT NII Dea em 31 | > mand the cause and direct the entry of-such appropri- : ate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be dust under ’ the circumstances.’ See Bryan v. United Siates; 338 U.S. 552, 70 S. Ct. 317, 94 L. Ed. 335.” Under. all of the circumstances, it. is respectfully sub- mitted that the question, as to the extent of a jury’s prov- ince and the limits of the Court’s authority on-the question of the amount of damages merits consideration, review and reassessment by this honorable. Court; otherwise; if the _ present enunciation by the Court below is permitted to stand, it would constitute a denial to a litigant of a jury trial on the question of damages, for the Court below, in substance, has affirmed the holding by the Trial Court that the mere fact that he differs with the jury is sufficient legal and factual. basis ‘for setting aside the entire verdict, including that based on liability, irrespective of- the fact that the injuries and permanent disability is so serious as to more than justify the jury’s verdict and is not of such an amount | as to shock the judicial conscience of the Court. The holding in the above entitled matter was that, if a _ jury’s verdict is twice that of the Court’s evaluation ti is a sufficient basis for setting aside the verdict; but, if the -.verdict qmounts to an inconsequential fraction of the ~ Court’s evaluation, that then it is en alright for the — verdict to stand. The injustice of this situation is self apparent and needs no argument. and affects the rights of every personal injury victim, and the question merits consideration, by this, Honorable Court. Respectfully submitted, _ Jacos Rassner, Attorney for Petitioner. 32 | APPENDIX | Opinion of United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS _ For rue Seconp Circuir ~ ___. No, 268—September Term; 1967. (Argued January 15, 1968 Decided January 18, 1968.) i Docket No. 31866 | ~’ FRrep CosENTINO, : : Plaintiff-A ppellant, . against | Tae Rowan NETHERLANDS STEAMSHIP CoMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.. ft Ww Before: . 7 Lumsarp, Chief J udge, Warencax and FEINBERG, Circuit J wdgée. Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, John R. Bartels, J., entered February 17, 1967, on a jury verdict of $1800 in favor of plaintiff in personal i or action. Affirmed. JacoB Rassner, New York, N. 'Y,, for plaintiff-appellant. Wuuum F. McNoutry, New York, N..Y. (Daniel J. Coughlin, New York, N. Y., on the brief), for de- _fendant-appellee. , 33 Opinion of United States Court of Appeals PER CuRIAM: ) ne This appeal by plaintiff from a judgment entered on a \ jury verdict of $1800 in his favor following the second ‘trial of his action in the Eastern District presents the -question whether Judge Dooling, who presided at the first _ trial, abused his discretion in ordering that the entire ac- tion be retired ‘unless the plaintiff agreed to remit a por- . tion-of the $25,000 jury verdict awarded to plaintiff in that first trial, We hold that there was no abuse of discretion and affirm the judgment. | . Plaintiff brought. suit for mnanel injuries suffered while employed as a longshoreman aboard deéfendant’s ship. The original trial before Judge Dooling and a jury in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York resulted in a jury verdict of $25,000 for the plaintiff. De- fendant moved for a new trial, and Judge Dooling ordered that the verdict be set aside and a new trial granted unless plaintiff would remit $12,000 of the $25,000 verdict. Plain- tiff declined to remit the “$12,000, and the case was then retried before Judge Bartel8 and a jury, resulting in a jury verdict of $1800 for the plaintiff. From the judgment. entered on this verdict, the plaintiff appeals, claiming that there was no basis for J udge Dooling to impose the remit-’ titur after the first trial and that Judge Dooling erred _in ordering a new trial of the entire action rather than only - on the issue of damages. ! Whether a verdict is excessive ~ whether-a new trial should be granted pursuant to a motion under Rule .59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are questions ad- - dressed to the discretion of the trial judge. Considering the evidence on the issue of damages, we find no abuse of discretion by Judge Dooling: in ordering that the action be retried unless the plaintiff — to remit hve 000 of ” jury ’s verdict. — Opinion if United States Court of Appeals “Where the district court has Sbeitibkiondl that the verdict is so excessive as to require a new trial, the question whether the retrial should relate to the issue of liability as well as to the issue of damages is likewise addressed to the discretion gf the trial judge. In the present case, where the doctrine of comparative negligence is involved _ and the amount of plaintiff’s damages is related to the issue of plaintiff’s contributory negligence, it seems entirely proper to retry the entire action and not to limit the issue on retrial to the amount of plaintiff’s damages.’ The. ap- pellant has cited no precedent to the contrary. Again, ‘we find that there was no. abuse of discretion $3 J udge Dooling. ‘oan : The judgment is affirmed. e . 35 Judgment of Affirmence UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS © - FOR THE " Sucomp Cmourr At a Stated Term of thé United States Court of Media in and for the Second Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse in the City of New York, on the eighteenth day _ of January one thousand nine hundred and sis tak Present: | Hon. J. Epwarp Lumsarp, ) , - Chief Judge, © Srérry R. Wissniaas, | “6 "Wirrep Femserc, 3 _. Cireuit Judges. Frep Cosentmo, hee er : v. : Tur Rovan N ETHERLANDS Sreamsnie Company (Konink- LIJKE - NEDERLANSCHE SroomBoors MaarscHarrts N. Wale THE — Houanp, a eae _Defendant-Appellant. =. ra’ Vv Appeal from ‘the. United States District Court ii the . Eastern District of New York. . ‘This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record. from the United States District Court for the Hastern District of New York, and was argued by counsel. On Consmperation WHEzeoF, it is now hereby ordered, | adjudged, and decreed that the order and judgment of said District Court be and they hereby are affirmed. — A. Danie. Fvsano, ee Clerk. , * . 96 : Order Denying Petition for Hearing UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS: Szconp Cmovrr No. 31866 i. Ww Frep Cosentino, . . Plaintiff-Appellant, - Vv. = Tae Rora, Nernertansvs Sreamsuie Company ‘(Kowinx- Lizke Nepertanscue Sroomsoors Maarscuapris N. V.), Tue Hacve, Hot.ann,: Defendant-Appellant. —_ * — - A petition for a rehearing having been filed herein by counsel for the appellant Fred Cosentino, Upon consideration thereof, it is Ordered that said petition be and it hereby is denied. J. Epwarp Lumepanrp, Srerry R. Warerman, Wurrep Fesens, Circuit Judges. 12 March 1968 . <<) —— 37 Order, En Banc, Denying Petition for Rehearing UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS . Szconp Crovir No. 31866 F rep Cosentix0, ' ‘Plaintiff-Appellant, v. : Tue Royvat Neruertanvs. Sreamsure Company. (Konrx- LiJKE NeperLanscHe Sroomsoots Maarscuarris N. V.), ’ Tue Hacvuz, Hottanp, ~ Defendant-Appellant. a a Ww A petition for a rehearing containing a suggestion that the action be reheard en banc having been filed herein by counsel for the appellant Fred Cosentino and no active circuit judge having requested that a vote be taken on said suggestion, Upon consideration thereof, it is Ordered that said petition be and it hereby is denied. J. Epwarp Lumsarp, Chief Judge. March 12, 1968 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385604_0185%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.