Legal Opinion
Binakonsky v. Ford Motor Company
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided January 5, 1998No. 96-2165PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opinion. Senior Judge BUTZNER wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge HALL joined. Judge NIEMEYER wrote a dissenting opinion.
OPINION
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge:
The widow and children of David Binakon-sky, who brought this action against the Ford Motor Company, appeal the district court’s entry of summary judgment for Ford. Because there are genuine issues of material fact, we vacate the district court’s summary judgment and remand the ease for trial.
I
In February 1988, David Binakonsky purchased a 1988 Ford E-150 Eeonoline van…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Arnold G. Barwick v. The Celotex Corporation, Keene Corporation, Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, H.K. Porter, Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1984
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Binakonsky v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1998