Churchill v. Southern Pac. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
JAMES M. CARTER, District Judge,
The action is one based on negligence, and arises under the diversity of citizen-; ship jurisdiction of the district court, After plaintiff’s case was presented to a jury, the court granted the motion of the defendant to dismiss under Rule 41 (b), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. A., took the ease from the jury and made its written order of dismissal. The correctness of such action by the trial court is the sole question presented on this appeal.
Whether or not a certain set of facts constitute a cause of action based on negligence, in a case arising under…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Girdner v. Union Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1932
- Daniels v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Raber v. TuminCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Hansen v. Bear Film Co.California Supreme Court · 1946
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Rice v. GideonNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1974
- Rice v. GideonNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1974
- Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Juan Munoz and Maria MunozCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964