Legal Opinion
Reeves v. Cincinnati, Inc.
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided February 6, 1995No. Docket 142550PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AFTER REMAND
Before: Hood, P.J., and Taylor and D. A. Servitto, * JJ. Taylor, J.
This is the second appeal in this products liability case. Previously, plaintiffs appealed from the grant of a directed verdict for both Cincinnati, Inc., and Addy-Morand Machinery Company at the close of plaintiffs’ proofs. The trial court ruled that plaintiffs’ proofs were insufficient to support their claims of design defect and failure to warn. On appeal in Reeves v Cincinnati, Inc, 176 Mich App 181; 439 NW2d 326 (1989), this Court reversed the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict with respect to the claim…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Johnson v. WhiteMichigan Supreme Court · 1988
- Reeves v. Cincinnati, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1989
- Lynch v. McStome & Lincoln Plaza AssociatesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Bloemsma v. Auto Club InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1991
- Muilenberg v. Upjohn Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1988
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Gregory v. Cincinnati Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1995
- Ashker v. Ford Motor Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2001
- Hill v. City of WarrenMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007
- Driver v. HanleyMichigan Court of Appeals · 1998
- Duncan v. StateMichigan Court of Appeals · 2013
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.