Skerman v. Philadelphia & R.
Citations
- 225 F. 85
- 1915 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1223
Syllabus
<p>L New Trial <3=99—Grounds- -Newly Discovered Evidence.</p> <p>In an action for personal injuries sustained at a railroad crossing, affidavits that a certain person, if called as a witness, would testily that plaintiff hurried down the street, did not stop when he reached the gate, and went under it just as a train came along, although in direct conflict with the plaintiffs evidence on the trial, do not present evidence newly discovered, or so plainly likely to affect the result, as to necessitate a new trial.</p> <p>[ Ed. Note.—For other cases, see New Trial, Cent Dig. 201, 207; Dee. Dig. <3=99.1</p> <p>2. New Trial <3=101—Grounds—Newly Discovered Evidence.</p> <p>Where a physical opportunity existed to obtain certain witnesses during the trial, but there was lack of time to investigate for the purpose of determining whether their evidence would be introduced, such evidence is not newly discovered in the legal sense.</p> <p>IJCd. Note.—For other cases, see New Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 205, 206; Dec. Dig. <3=101.]</p> <p>8. New Trial <3=101—Grounds—Newly Discovered Evidence.</p> <p>After-investigation cannot supply, as newly discovered evidence, something that the parties might have gone into before the trial, if it had been considered material.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see New Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 205, 206; Dec. Dig. <3=101.1</p> <p>4, New Trial <3=100—Grounds—Newly Discovered Evidence.</p> <p>In an action for personal injuries, where plaintiff had testified that his earning capacity was $30 a week, and that he had made $90 during the month preceding the trial, evidence, from investigation after the trial, that his earning capacity was small, and that he had actually earned much less than $90 during the preceding month, did not constitute after-discovered evidence.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see New Trial, Cent Dig. §§ 183, 201-204, 208, 209; Dec. Dig. <3=100.1</p> <p>QzzzFor other cañes see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Inde
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- reversing a district court’s grant of a certificate of appealability 24 on this issue; finding it “not reasonably debatable” that a “conviction became final and the 25 limitations period began to run when [the petitioner’s] appeal was voluntarily dismissed”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Ohatfiexd
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.