Legal Opinion

Black v. Martin

Montana Supreme Court

Decided October 24, 1930No. 6,659PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Citing in support of appellant's contention that an agreement not to sue one joint tort-feasor which expressly reserves the right to sue another joint tort-feasor, does not operate as a discharge of the tort-feasor thus expressly excluded: Carey v.Bilby, 129 Fed. 203, 63 C.C.A. 361; Berry v. Pullman Co., 249 Fed. 816, L.R.A. 1918F, 358, 162 C.C.A. 50; Barnett v.Conklin, 268 Fed. 177; The Thomas P. Beal, (1924) 298 Fed. 121; Gamble v. Brown, (1928) 29 F.2d 366; The RossCoddington, (1930) 40 F.2d 280; Steenhuis v. Holland, (1927) 217 Ala. 105, 115 So. 2; Wright v. McCord, (1920),205 Ala. 122,…

2Cases cited93 opinions

  1. Gilbert v. . FinchNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
  2. Dwy v. Connecticut Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1915
  3. Ellis v. EssonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
  4. Abb v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Matheson v. O'KaneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912

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

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. McKenna v. AustinCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1943
  2. In re W.R. Grace & Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 2012
  3. Morton v. MooneyMontana Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Azure Ex Rel. Marchington v. City of BillingsMontana Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Gronquist v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954

46 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