Legal Opinion
Spell v. Kendall-Futuro Co.
District Court, E.D. Texas
Decided May 26, 1994No. 1:93-CV-505PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
COBB, District Judge.
Before the court is the Defendant’s Motion for Destructive Testing. After considering the Motion, this Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be granted with specified limitations.
The plaintiff seeks recovery for personal injuries allegedly sustained when the cane manufactured by the defendant failed. The defendant seeks to destructively test the cane to determine its tensile strength and metallurgical content. Although the plaintiff has apparently not agreed to the testing, he has not responded to the defendant’s motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Marjorie Louise Dabney v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated, and Honeywell, IncCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1985
- Ostrander v. Cone Mills, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1988
3Cited by5 opinions
- Mirchandani v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2006
- Ramos v. Carter Express Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2013
- Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Nebula Glasslam International, Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2008
- In Re McNeilus Manufacturing Explosion Coordinated LitigationDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2018
- Southworth v. SmithKline . . .District Court, D. New Hampshire · 1996