Legal Opinion

Cheatham v. Thurston Motor Lines

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Decided May 12, 1986No. C-3-83-1133PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DECISION AND ENTRY REGARDING CHOICE OF LAW; DECISION SUSTAINING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE LIMITED EXTENT THAT DEFENDANT PLUNKETT IS FOUND NEGLIGENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

RICE, District Judge.

This case came before the Court as a rather straight-forward personal injury case, arising from the rear-ending of a van that contained six of the Plaintiffs by a truck driven by Defendant Plunkett, an employee of Defendant Thurston Motor Lines. Over the course of time, however, this case has evolved into a complex mass of litigation involving both the original negligence claim and claims…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Morgan v. Biro Manufacturing Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Richard J. Teal and Tina Teal v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1984
  4. Cecil v. HardinTennessee Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Street v. CalvertTennessee Supreme Court · 1976

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Muncie Power Products, Inc. v. United Technologies Automotive, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
  2. Schumacher v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2014
  3. Lewis v. Horace Mann InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2005
  4. Patten v. GMC, Chevrolet Motor Div.District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1987
  5. Northland Power v. General Electric, Co.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1999

3 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