Legal Opinion

Joseph Rudolph Hamilton v. Armstrong Cork Company

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided January 27, 1967No. 23275_1PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DYER, Circuit Judge:

From a summary judgment for the defendant Armstrong Cork Company, the plaintiff Joseph Rudolph Hamilton appeals. Concluding, as we do, that there is a factual issue to be submitted to a jury we reverse.

In January, 1963, Armstrong contracted with the electrical contracting firm of Maultsby and Sutton to remove two poles and some power lines from Armstrong’s property. The lines extended across three creosoted poles. Hamilton, an employee of the independent contractor and an experienced lineman, was removing the wires from his position on top of the pole which was to remain…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hall v. HollandSupreme Court of Florida · 1950
  2. Hickory House v. BrownSupreme Court of Florida · 1955
  3. Quinnelly v. Southern Maid Syrup CompanyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1964
  4. Peninsular Telephone Co. v. DoritySupreme Court of Florida · 1937

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hite v. Maritime Overseas CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Texas · 1974
  2. Elton Warren v. Hudson Pulp & Paper Corp., and Third Party v. Treadwell Corp., Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973

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

Powered by the Exa API