Legal Opinion
Guy v. Rudd
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided June 15, 1973No. Nos. 72-1889 to 72-1893PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judge.
This appeal requires determination of the extent to which allegedly inconsistent answers to interrogatories submitted to a jury were properly harmonized by the district court in entering its judgment. See Gallick v. B & O RR. Co., 372 U.S. 108, 119, 83 S.Ct. 659, 9 L.Ed. 2d 618 (1963); Swift v. Martin, 258 F.2d 797, 799 (3d Cir. 1958).
The background facts, including the interrogatories submitted to the jury and the judgment entered,1 are stated as follows in the district court opinion, 345 F.Supp. 1382, denying Motions for New Trial.
The above…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Cooper v. D/S A/S ProgressDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1960
- Guy v. RuddDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1972
3Cited by7 opinions
- John T. Brady & Co. v. City of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Stephen Andrasko and Elizabeth Andrasko v. Chamberlain Manufacturing CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
- William Riley v. K Mart CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
- Rose Hall Ltd. v. Chase Manhattan Overseas Banking Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1983
- Robert L. Guy v. Gordon Willis Rudd, in No. 72-1890. Appeal of Theodore James Wilson and Eastern Stainless Steel Corporation, in No. 72-1889. Theodore Wilson, in Nos. 72-1892, 72-1890 v. Robert L. Guy v. Eastern Stainless Steel Corporation. Appeal of Gordon Willis Rudd and Universal Oil Products Company, in No. 72-1891Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1973
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.