Legal Opinion

Crank v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided June 4, 1985No. WD 36046PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NUGENT, Judge.

The jury found in favor of plaintiff and awarded him $7,000 on his action for defendant’s breach of warranty in its installation of an oil filter on plaintiff’s automobile. Defendant complains of insufficient evidence to warrant submission of the case to the jury, of errors in the instructions and in the admission of evidence, and of exces-siveness of the verdict. We affirm the judgment on liability and remand the case with directions for retrial on the issue of damages.

Because we review the sufficiency of the evidence to submit the case to the jury, we set forth the following…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Liberty Financial Management Corp. v. Beneficial Data Processing Corp.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. Casada v. Hamby Excavating Co., Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1978
  3. Grossman Iron & Steel Co. v. Bituminous Casualty Corp.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1977
  4. McGrady v. Chrysler Motors Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1977
  5. Interco Inc. v. Randustrial Corp.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1976

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Gill Construction, Inc. v. 18th & Vine AuthorityMissouri Court of Appeals · 2005
  2. Dierker Associates, D.C., P.C. v. GillisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1993
  3. Data Processing Services, Inc. v. L.H. Smith Oil Corp.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1986
  4. C.L. Maddox, Inc. v. Benham Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1996
  5. St. John's Bank & Trust Co. v. Intag, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1997

12 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