Legal Opinion
Martin v. the Budd Company
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided June 3, 1998No. C.A. No. 18695PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Slaby, Presiding Judge.
Appellant, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, appeals from the trial court’s denial of its motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum. We reverse.
Albert and Leroy Martin filed a products liability action that is pending in the District Court of Scott County, Iowa. The Martins allege in the Iowa action that during the mounting of a sixteen-inch, used 1984 Goodrich tire on a 16.5-inch wheel manufactured by The Budd Company, the tire exploded and injured Leroy Martin. The Martins claim that the tire was designed with a multi-strand weftless bead. The Martins argue that if…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State ex rel. Daggett v. GessamanOhio Supreme Court · 1973
- Stegawski v. Cleveland Anesthesia Group, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1987
- Manofsky v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1990
- Howell v. Dayton Power & Light Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1995
- McMillan v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County1974
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lambda Research v. JacobsOhio Court of Appeals · 2007
- Hanneman Family Funeral Homes & Crematorium v. OriansOhio Court of Appeals · 2022
- Byrd v. Lindsay Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2020
- Byrd v. Lindsay Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2020
- Splater v. Thermal Ease Hydronic Systems, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2006