Cheatham v. Thurston Motor Lines
District Court, S.D. Ohio
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
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Morgan v. Biro Manufacturing Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
- Richard J. Teal and Tina Teal v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1984
- Cecil v. HardinTennessee Supreme Court · 1978
- Street v. CalvertTennessee Supreme Court · 1976
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Muncie Power Products, Inc. v. United Technologies Automotive, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
- Schumacher v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2014
- Lewis v. Horace Mann InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2005
- Patten v. GMC, Chevrolet Motor Div.District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1987
- Northland Power v. General Electric, Co.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1999
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.