Hammill v. Hyster Co.
District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION ON MOTION FOR PRODUCTION
MYRON L. GORDON, District Judge.
The defendant has objected to portions of-the plaintiff’s motion for production. The parties have agreed that the areas of dispute on this motion involves the following:
1. Discovery relating to changes between the KD Model Earry Erane by which plaintiff was injured and any later model (s) which defendant has manufactured. (Itemsv-7, 8, and 12).
2. Discovery relating to tipping incidents regarding any model Hyste'r Earry Erane (Item 9).
3. Discovery as to any warnings given by defendant when such warnings are premised on…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Columbia & Puget Sound Railroad v. HawthorneSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Heiden v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
- Needles v. F. W. Woolworth Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1952
- Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Glenn L. Martin CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1955
3Cited by10 opinions
- Fine v. Facet Aerospace Products Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1990
- Uitts v. General Motors Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1972
- Bowman v. General Motors Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1974
- Reddick v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc.District Court, S.D. Georgia · 1969
- Gauche v. Ford Motor CompanyLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1969
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.