MCALLISTER LIGHTERAGE LINE, INC.,

v.

JOHN T. CLARK & SON, INC.

Citator

Cited By (42 total)

• Paliaga v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 301 F.2d 403 (2d Cir. 1962)
  …S. 939, 78 S.Ct. 781, 2 L.Ed.2d 814 (1958); cf. Ignatyuk v. Tramp Chartering Corp., 250 F. 2d 198 (2 Cir. 1957); Reddick v. McAllister Litherage Line Co., 258 F. 2d 297 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, McAllister Lighterage Line, Inc. v. John T. Clark & Son, 358 U.S. 908, 79 S.Ct. 235, 3 L.Ed.2d 229 (1958). Inasmuch as the district court in the present case dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence claim against Luckenbach, we shall not discuss the effect that a shipowner’s own negligence could have upon the liability…
• Radiation Dynamics, Inc. v. Goldmuntz, 464 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1972)
  …acts, after making due allowance for all reasonably possible inferenc [*887] es favoring the party whose case is attacked.” Moreover, as was pointed out by Judge Haynsworth in Ford Motor Company v. McDavid, 259 F. 2d 261, 266 (4 Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 908, 79 S.Ct. 234, 3 L.Ed.2d 229 (1958), “Permissible inferences must still be within the range of reasonable probability, however, and it is the duty of the court to withdraw the case from the jury when the necessary inference is so tenuous that it res…
• Indira Gairola v. Commonwealth OF Va. Dep't OF Gen. Servs., 753 F.2d 1281 (4th Cir. 1985)
  …). As a consequence, the case should be withdrawn from the jury when any verdict in favor of the nonmoving party necessarily will be premised upon “speculation and conjecture.” Ford Motor Co. v. McDavid, 259 F. 2d 261, 266 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 908, 79 S.Ct. 234, 3 L.Ed.2d 229 (1958). The question is not whether there is no evidence, but whether there is sufficient evidence upon which a jury can properly proceed to reach a verdict, Ralston Purina Co. v. Edmunds, 241 F. 2d 164, 167 (4th Cir.),…