Akkerman v. Mecta Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM **
In this products liability action, Atze Akkerman is suing MECTA Corporation for injuries allegedly sustained in December 1999 and January 2000 through electroconvulusive therapy (“ECT”) treatments administered by treating physicians using a device manufactured by MECTA. A jury returned a defense verdict. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
1. As a preliminary matter, Akkerman claims that the district court effectively precluded argument on objections by disallowing argument in front of the jury. We find that the district court’s requirement that counsel respond…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Soule v. General Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Ludis J. Cooper v. The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, and the Budd Company, Ludis J. Cooper v. The Firestone Tire and Rubber CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- United States v. DecoudCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- United States v. Ramiro Adames, Robert Lynn Jones, and Dennis FinchCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Specter v. Rainbow King Lodge, Inc.District Court, D. Alaska · 2020