Legal Opinion

Millard Smith Marshall and Melvin Pettit v. Carl E. Mintz

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided December 1, 1967No. 24520PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict awarding appel-lee damages in a personal injury diversity case.

The appellants contend that the district court erred in denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because there was no proof of appellants’ negligence, but on the contrary the only reasonable inference to be drawn was that appellee’s own negligence was the proximate cause of injuries. On oral argument appellant’s counsel, with candor, admitted that there was sufficient evidence to sustain a jury finding that appellants were negligent but insisted…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. And Cosmair, Inc. v. Edd Pruitt and Marjorie Ann PruittCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
  2. Marsh v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1949
  3. Planters Manufacturing Company v. Protection Mutual Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1967
  4. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation and Insurance Company of North America v. Eustace J. MatherneCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1965
  5. Swift & Co. v. Morgan & SturdivantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1954

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. ShipmanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
  2. The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. ShipmanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
  3. In Re Flonase Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
  4. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
  5. The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. ShipmanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969

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

Powered by the Exa API