Citation network
Palmer Vs. Hoffman
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 01, 1943
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 109 (1943) U.S. Supreme Court Palmer v. HoffmanSearch
-
U.S. 109 (1943) Palmer v. HoffmanSearch
-
of the present Act. See Morgan et al., The Law of Evidence, Some Proposals for its Reform (1927) c. V. AndSearch
-
routine reflections of the day to day operations of a business would be forgotten as the basis of the rule. See Conner v. SeattleSearch
-
the test, rather than the character of the records and their earmarks of reliability ( Chesapeake & Delaware Canal Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
respondent to offer the statement in evidence, in which case the court would admit it. See Edison Electric Light Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
negligence is a question of local law which federal courts, in diversity of citizenship cases ( Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
U. S. 64 ), must apply. Cities Service Oil Co. v. DunlapSearch
-
Sampson v. ChannellSearch
-
F.2d 754. And see Central Vermont Ry. Co. v. WhiteSearch
-
the holding below that, as a matter of New York conflict of laws which the trial court was bound to apply ( Klaxon Co. v. StentorSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 487 ), petitioners had the burden of proving contributory negligence. That ruling was based on Fitzpatrick v. InternationalSearch
-
That statute, like the Ontario statute, creates rights not recognized at common law. Brooks v. FitchburgSearch
-
Duggan v. BaySearch
-
Sullivan v. HustisSearch
-
Lewis v. BostonSearch
-
N.E. 663. And in actions under it, the burden of proving contributory negligence is on the defendant. Manley v. BostonSearch
-
Phelps v. NewSearch
-
McDonald v. NewSearch
-
Kenny v. BostonSearch
-
of action based on the Massachusetts statute may be arguable. But it is not the type of ruling under Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
case, 252 N.Y. p. 135, 169 N.E. 112, and stated in other cases in New York's intermediate appellate courts ( Wright v. PalmisonSearch
-
Clark v. HarnischfegerSearch
-
in the latter situation, the burden of proving freedom from contributory negligence is on the plaintiff. Fitzpatrick v. InternationalSearch
-
and where part of the charge was correct, he may not, through a general exception, obtain a new trial. See Lincoln v. ClaflinSearch
-
Mobile & M. Ry. Co. v. JureySearch
-
Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. EarnestSearch
-
The problem was well stated by Judge Learned Hand in Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. NorwichSearch
-
It is clear that it does not come within the exceptions as to declarations by a deceased witness. See Shepard v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Palmer v. HoffmanSearch
-
See Conner v. SeattleSearch
-
Chesapeake & Delaware Canal Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
See Edison Electric Light Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
Klaxon Co. v. StentorSearch
-
Fitzpatrick v. InternationalSearch
-
Brooks v. FitchburgSearch
-
Manley v. BostonSearch
-
Wright v. PalmisonSearch
-
See Lincoln v. ClaflinSearch
-
Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. NorwichSearch
-
See Shepard v. UnitedSearch
-
Beaver v. TaylorSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial