Legal Opinion

Angel v. Ray

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

Decided June 7, 1968No. 67-C-285PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION and ORDER

MYRON L. GORDON, District Judge.

This case is now before the court on plaintiffs’ motion to strike the affirmative defenses of Ray. The two defenses are basically as follows: that the action is barred by virtue of the Tennessee statute of limitations which provides that action against a tortfeasor must be commenced within one year from the date of the occurrence; and that Tennessee law provides that contributory negligence upon the part of a person seeking recovery shall bar that person from recovery.

The action arises out of a Tennessee automobile accident between two Illinois…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  3. Van Dusen v. BarrackSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  4. Wilcox v. WilcoxWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Heath v. ZellmerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Gilbert v. Eli Lilly & Co.District Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1972
  2. US Oil Co., Inc. v. Koch Refining Co.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1981
  3. Williams v. Jerry L. Kaltenbach Ent., Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1981
  4. United States v. 187.40 Acres of Land, Huntingdon Cty., Pa.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1974
  5. Phillips v. GieringerAlaska Supreme Court · 2005

2 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