Milton S. Koblitz, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, Defendant-appellee, 266 F.2d 320 (2d Cir. 1959)
Annotate this CaseDecided April 28, 1959
David M. Palley, New York City (Nathan B. Kogan and Louis Boehm, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
John D. Calhoun, New York City (Cravath, Swaine & Moore and John F. Hunt, Jr., New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before MEDINA and HINCKS, Circuit Judges, and MATHES, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM.
We affirm on the opinion of Judge Bryan, reported at 164 F. Supp. 367. In addition to the estoppel of the former judgment we find that the basic point now argued as to whether the source of appellant's claim is derivative or direct, was determined in the appeal to this Court from the adverse judgment in the prior action. Rieser v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 2 Cir., 1955, 228 F.2d 563. Thus appellant is bound not only by a direct but also by a collateral estoppel.
Affirmed.
United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
