Legal Opinion · Dissent

Anderson v. Ford Motor Co.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided September 19, 1996No. 95-CV-302Published

1DissentSchwelb, Associate Judge

Substantially for the reasons stated by the trial judge in his written order of February 17, 1995, I believe that summary judgment was properly granted. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

Ms. Anderson asserted in her affidavit in opposition to Ford’s motion that “the air bag of my scout car did not deploy properly as it did not inflate on impact.” According to the majority, this statement, viewed in the light most favorable to Ms. Anderson, was sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact within the meaning of Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c). I disagree.

Ford’s expert witness, Anthony…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Beard v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
  3. Vale v. BonnettCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1951
  4. Zinnel v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
  5. Zollman v. Symington Wayne Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1971

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API