Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lockard v. Missouri Pacific Railroad

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided January 19, 1990No. Nos. 89-1068, 89-1069Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBeam, Circuit Judge

I concur in the result reached by the majority with regard to the inconsistent jury verdicts. I disagree with its speculation that the jury intended to apportion total damages of $800,000 between the two defendants. I believe, however, that the judgments are susceptible to reconciliation under rules of law available to the district court.

I dissent with regard to the majority holding on the issue of pendent party jurisdiction.

The district court entered judgment on both the federal and the state claims before *306the United States Supreme Court decided Finley v. United States, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. KrogerSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Aldinger v. HowardSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Zahn v. International Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
  5. Finley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

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