Legal Opinion

Ernestine Mitchell v. Ford Motor Company

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided March 9, 2009No. 08-10302UnpublishedCited by 163 opinions

1Per curiam

This appeal is about the necessity of an adequate and timely disclosure of the support for an expert witness opinion. Plaintiffs-Appellants Ernestine and Otis Mitchell (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s decision granting Defendant-Appellee Ford Motor Company’s (“Ford”) Motion to Strike and Second Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs’ product liability action was brought under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine as well as for negligence and wantonness. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.

BACKGROUND

This case resulted from a rollover accident involving a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Marilyn Kay Fernandez, Etc., Banco Nacional De Cuba, Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellees, Gilbert McDonaldCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1984
  4. Leathers v. Pfizer, Inc.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 2006
  5. Serra Chevrolet, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2006

3Cited by163 opinions

  1. Mobile Shelter Systems USA, Inc. v. Grate Pallet Solutions, LLCDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 2012
  2. Bowe v. Public StorageDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2015
  3. Abdulla v. KlosinskiDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 2012
  4. San Francisco Residence Club, Inc. v. Baswell-GuthrieDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 2012
  5. Woienski v. United Airlines, Inc.District Court, M.D. Florida · 2019

158 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