GULF REFINING CO.

v.

MARK C. WALKER & SON CO. ET AL.; AND GULF REFINING CO. V. CHARLES WEAVER & CO., INC.

Citator

Cited By (14 total)

• Traver v. Meshriy, 627 F.2d 934 (9th Cir. 1980)
  …s attributable to another theory if it was supported by substantial . evidence and was submitted to the jury free from error. Adkins v. Ford Motor Co., 446 F. 2d 1105, 1108 (6th Cir. 1971); Cross v. Ryan, 124 F. 2d 883 (7th Cir. 1941), cert. denied, 316 U.S. 682, 62 S.Ct. 1269, 86 L.Ed. 1755 (1942); Berger v. Southern Pac. Co., 144 Cal.App.2d 1, 300 P. 2d 170 (1956). In deciding whether to exercise this discretion, the reviewing court should determine the potential for confusion of the jury which may have r…
• Lenoir v. Porters Creek Watershed Dist., 586 F.2d 1081 (6th Cir. 1978)
  …strict, 133 Tenn. 684, 182 S.W. 237 (1916), and that the district was in fact fulfilling a governmental function in undertaking the channelization project, citing Gulf Refining Co. v. Mark C. Walker & Son Co., 124 F. 2d 420 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 316 U.S. 682, 62 S.Ct. 1268, 86 L.Ed. 1755 (1942). Neither the parties nor the court found any Tennessee judicial interpretation of the character of watershed districts in the state as contrasted with those of drainage districts. Nonetheless if a drainage distri…
• Troup v. McCART, 238 F.2d 289 (5th Cir. 1956)
  …cy holders who contributed to the fund, the claims are not joint but arise from the several policies, and may not be aggregated. Andrews v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States, 7 Cir., 1941, 124 F. 2d 788 * * * certiorari denied, 1942, 316 U.S. 682 [62 S.Ct. 1270, 86 L.Ed. 1755] * * 15 The Andrews case is quite generally referred to as a basis for later decisions, and it in turn rests heavily upon Eberhard v. Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co.,16 which was cited as authority by the Supreme Cou…