Legal Opinion

Walker v. International Harvester Company

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

Decided January 9, 1969No. Civ. 67-165PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

DAUGHERTY, District Judge.

Upon consideration of the Motion of Plaintiff for Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto and Motion for New Trial, the Court finds that both Motions should be denied.

As to the claim that the verdict of the jury in favor of the Defendant is not supported by legal evidence, the Court finds this claim to be without merit. The theory and evidence of the Plaintiffs was that the Defendant in the manufacture of its truck involved herein failed and neglected to use a safety door latch then in use in the industry; that the impact from the accident involved was light but…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. Morris H. SwitzerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
  2. Rafael Garcia Camps v. New York City Transit AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
  3. Atkinson v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. Lee v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. CoCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1952
  4. Lively v. DavisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1966
  5. Kerley Chemical Corp. v. Producers Cotton Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1965

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. United States v. Willie H. DennisCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980
  2. Thomas Polk v. Ford Motor Company, Ethel Lee Marshall, Guardian v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1976
  3. John D. Melia, Special Administrator of the Estate of Pearl Lorraine Norgaard, Deceased v. Ford Motor Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1976
  4. Bih-Jing Jeng v. WittersDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1978
  5. Grundmanis v. British Motor CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1970

4 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