Legal Opinion

Cummins, Inc. v. Nelson

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 2005No. S-11172/11201PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

EASTAUGH, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Nelsons’ fishing boat caught fire, burned, and sank soon after Piston and Rudder Corporation (P & R) renovated it. The renovations, called a “repower,” included installation of a Cummins, Inc. marine engine. The Nelsons sued P & R, Cummins, Inc., and Cummins Northwest, Inc. A jury found that P & R acted negligently and that the Cum-mins defendants cloaked P & R with the authority to act on their behalf by directing the Nelsons to P & R and assuring them that P & R could repower their vessel. The Cummins defendants appeal. We affirm. We conclude that…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
  2. Guin v. HaAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Simmons v. GarcesIllinois Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. v. City of Monterey, Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., and Monterey-Del Monte Dunes Corporation v. City of MontereyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
  5. Beck v. State, Department of Transportation & Public FacilitiesAlaska Supreme Court · 1992

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Sowinski v. WalkerAlaska Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Cameron v. CHANG-CRAFTAlaska Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Askinuk Corp. v. Lower Yukon School DistrictAlaska Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Alaska Fur Gallery, Inc. v. First National Bank AlaskaAlaska Supreme Court · 2015
  5. Patterson v. GEICO General Insurance CompanyAlaska Supreme Court · 2015

21 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