Legal Opinion
Borg-Warner-Corporation v. Mall Tool Company
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided May 31, 1955No. 11032_1PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LINDLEY, Circuit Judge.
Defendant moves to reopen our decision reversing, in part, a judgment of the trial court in favor of defendant. 7 Cir., 217 F.2d 850. In its attempt to present so-called newly discovered evidence, defendant invokes the rule announced in Chicago & W. I. R. Co. v. Chicago & E. R. Co., 7 Cir., 140 F.2d 130, certiorari denied Chicago & E. I. R. R. Co. v. Grand Trunk W. R. Co., 322 U.S. 747, 64 S.Ct. 1157, 88 L.Ed. 1579, under which, we may reopen the controversy and remand the cause to the trial court for its consideration of newly discovered evidence, if it appears that…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Carson v. American Smelting & Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925
- Trane Co. v. Nash Engineering Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1928
- Borg-Warner Corporation v. Mall Tool CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1955
- Chicago & W. I. R. v. Chicago & E. R.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1944
- Union Bleachery v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1949
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Underwater Devices Incorporated v. Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. v. Lester A. Haug, Don W. Schmid and Herman GuntherCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Aluminum Co. of America v. Sperry Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1960
- Jamco, Incorporated, an Oklahoma Corporation, and A. D. Willkinson v. Theodore F. Carlson, and Carlson Manufacturing Co., a Colorado CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1959
- Aluminum Company Of America v. Sperry Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1960
- Sperry Products, Inc. v. Aluminum Company of AmericaDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1959
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.