Legal Opinion

Houston v. Escott

District Court, D. Delaware

Decided June 23, 1949No. Civ. A. 1152PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RODNEY, District Judge.

This action arises out of a claim for personal injuries incurred by the plaintiff as a result of being struck by a golf ball driven by the defendant while both parties, independently, were playing golf on the course of the Kennett Square Golf and Country Club at Kennett Square, Pennsylvania.

Defendant has moved under Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A., for summary judgment, basing his motion upon his own supporting affidavit and the plaintiff’s amended complaint. Affidavits in opposition to the motion have been filed by the plaintiff and the other…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Benjamin v. NernbergSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  3. Dougherty v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Boozer v. Arizona Country ClubArizona Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Jenks v. McGranaghanNew York Court of Appeals · 1972
  3. Wood v. PostelthwaiteCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1972
  4. Trauman v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Oakes v. ChapmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958

4 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