Wright v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
District Court, W.D. Missouri
1Opinion of the Court
JOHN W. OLIVER, District Judge.
These consolidated cases pend on the following timely filed post-trial motions:
1. Plaintiffs’ motion for partial new trial on the sole issue of damages; and
2. Defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
For the reasons we shall state in some detail, plaintiffs’ motion will be denied; defendant’s motion will be granted; and, consistent with the rationale of Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 61 S.Ct. 189, 85 L.Ed. 147 (1940), and the 1963 Amendments to Rule 50 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, we indicate that if the judgment entered…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. DuncanSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Leif M. Hanson v. Ford Motor Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1960
- Eugene O'COnnOr v. The Pennsylvania Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Matt M. Kotula, D/B/A Albany Motor Sales v. Ford Motor Company, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1964
- Columbus Green v. Reynolds Metals CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1964
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Selle v. GibbDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1983
- IDEAL PLUMBING COMPANY v. Benco, Inc.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1974
- Donald v. Uarco Business FormsDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1972