MOSLEY ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES APPLIANCE CORP.

Citator

Cited By

• The Cnty. OF Todd v. Louise M. Loegering for the Heirs of Arthur Simonson, 297 F.2d 470 (8th Cir. 1961)
  …and construction of the evidence”. (Emphasis supplied.) See generally 5 Moore’s Federal Practice, Chapter 51, par. 51.05, page 2506 and Terminal Railroad Ass’n of St. Louis v. Staengel, 8 Cir., 122 F. 2d 271, 136 A.L.R. 789 (1941), cert. den. 1941, 314 U.S. 680, 62 S.Ct. 181, 86 L.Ed. 544. . “When one is placed by the negligent act of another in such a position that he is compelled to choose upon the instant and in the face of apparent and great impending peril between different hazards, and he makes such…
• The Est. OF Stuart Lutren v. Chesapeake AND Ohio Railroad, 592 F.2d 941 (6th Cir. 1979)
  …., 540 F. 2d 62, 66 (2d Cir. 1976); Hetzel v. Jewel Companies, Inc., 457 F. 2d 527, 535 (7th Cir. 1972); Downie v. Powers, 193 F. 2d 760, 766 (10th Cir. 1951); Terminal R. Ass’n. of St. Louis v. Staengel, 122 F. 2d 271, 278 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 680, 62 S.Ct. 181, 86 L.Ed. 544 (1941); 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2551. On the other hand, the Rule preserves a trial court’s discretion to modify a final charge up to the time of its actual delivery to the jury. Such discretio…
• Shamrock Techs., Inc. v. Med. Sterilization, Inc., 903 F.2d 789 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
  …ance Corp., 177 F. 2d 98, 101, 83 USPQ 41, 42-43 (9th Cir.1949) (no privity between assignor and remote successors in interest); United States Appliance Corp. v. Beauty Shop Supply Co., 121 F. 2d 149, 151, 50 USPQ 40, 42-43 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 680, 62 S.Ct. 180, 86 L.Ed. 544 (1941) (privity between assignor and co-developer of infringing device with company they formed to advance their interests in infringing device); Stubnitz-Greene Spring Corp. v. Fort Pitt Bedding Co., 110 F. 2d 192, 195,…