Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Diamond Shamrock Corp. v. Zinke & Trumbo, Ltd.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided May 21, 1986No. Nos. 85-1698, 85-1803Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcKAY, Circuit Judge
I concur in the result reached by the majority and in the court’s conclusion that it is possible to reconcile the apparent inconsistencies in the verdicts returned at the first trial. I have serious misgivings, however, about the majority’s reliance on Rule 49(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In my view, Rule 49 does not apply in this case. I therefore dissent from the court’s holding that Diamond Shamrock waived its right to object to inconsistencies in the verdicts by failing to object or move for resubmission before the jury was dismissed.
The facts which gave rise to this action…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Ellerman Lines, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Lawrence R. Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1975
- ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. YeattsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1941
- Railroad Dynamics, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. A. Stucki Company, Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.