HARRY L. HAMPSON, APPELLANT,
v.
BUCYRUS-ERIE COMPANY AND CENTRE FOUNDRY AND MACHINE COMPANY, A CORPORATION
HARRY L. HAMPSON, APPELLANT,
BUCYRUS-ERIE COMPANY AND CENTRE FOUNDRY AND MACHINE COMPANY, A CORPORATION
464 F.2d 562
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1972)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:
Contrary to the contention of the appellant, the record shows that the trial judge undertook to apply the law of Ohio in instructing the jury on the principles of liability that are applicable to this products liability case. Moreover, since appellant’s counsel had taken the position that on the issues contested in this case Ohio and Pennsylvania law are essentially the same, we find no basis for reversal in appellant’s contention on appeal that certain differences between Ohio and Pennsylvania law were not adequately explained to the jury.
The judgment will be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robert O. and Katherieen Goldsmith v. Diamond Shamrock Corp., 767 F.2d 411 (8th Cir. 1985)
-
Bryant v. Elliott, 467 F.2d 1109 (5th Cir. 1972)
-
Walter E. Heller & Co. v. Video Innovations, Inc., 730 F.2d 50 (2d Cir. 1984)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence