Legal Opinion

Johnson v. Niagara MacH. and Tool Works

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 17, 1989No. 88-912PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment in favor of all defendants. The trial court wrote no opinion; it simply entered its judgment on the case action summary sheet, without explanation as to why the summary judgment was granted. This action was filed prior to June 11, 1987; therefore, the "scintilla rule of evidence" applies. See Code 1975, §12-21-12.

The facts of the case show that the plaintiff, Michael Johnson, was severely injured in the operation of an E-150 industrial die press manufactured by defendant Niagara Machine and Tool Works (hereinafter "Niagara") and distributed by…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Casrell v. Altec Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1976
  2. Atkins v. American Motors Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1976
  3. Bexiga v. Havir Manufacturing Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1972
  4. Central Alabama Elec. Co-Op. v. TapleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1989
  5. Mrs. Frances Buckley Ward, Cross-Appellant v. The Hobart Manufacturing Company, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1971

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Hannah v. Gregg, Bland & Berry, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2002
  2. Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. HarrisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1994
  3. Townsend v. General Motors Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1994
  4. Hicks v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1994
  5. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. v. LaxsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1994

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API