Legal Opinion
Byce v. American Honda Motor Co.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided June 17, 1971No. Civ. A. Nos. 66-1275, 66-1274PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ROSENBERG, District Judge.
Both plaintiffs in these consolidated cases have presented motions for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At Civil Action No. 66-1274 in which Patricia Ann Weiseckle was the plaintiff, a motion by the defendant for dismissal for failure to meet the jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 was granted after the plaintiff rested her case. At Civil Action No. 66-1275, in which Ethel Marie Byce was the plaintiff, the jury found in favor of the defendant, American Honda Motor Company, Inc.1 These actions were instituted…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. ShipmanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
- Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Sentilles v. Inter-Caribbean Shipping Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Mrs. T. H. Duncan (C. W. Duncan, Administrator of the Estate of Mrs. T. H. Duncan, Deceased) v. W. Ray Duncan, Mrs. John Fain v. W. Ray DuncanCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1967
- John P. O'Brien v. Westinghouse Electric CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1961
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- GBS Meat Industry Pty. Ltd. v. Kress-Dobkin Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1979
- Foster v. Continental Can Corp.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 1984
- Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Videfreeze Corp.District Court, Virgin Islands · 1975