DAULTON, ADMINISTRATRIX,

v.

SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.

Citator

Cited By

• Taylor v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 787 F.2d 1309 (9th Cir. 1986)
  …ition is to be decided by the jury if there is any evidence at all of contributory negligence. See Sears v. Southern Pacific Co., 313 F. 2d 498, 502-03 (9th Cir.1963); Daulton v. Southern Pacific Co., 237 F. 2d 710, 713 (9th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 1005, 77 S.Ct. 564, 1 L.Ed.2d 549 (1957). The district court abused its discretion in refusing to give an instruction on comparative negligence. Burlington presented evidence at trial suggesting that Taylor participated in heated verbal exchanges with B…
• Harris v. Pa. R.R. Co., 361 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1959)
  …nal R. Co., 347 U. S. 956. Conser v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co., 348 U. S. 828. Metrakos v. Cleveland Union Terminals Co., 348 U. S. 872. [*23] Kane v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Corp., 348 U. S. 943. Daulton v. Southern Pacific Co., 352 U. S. 1005. Burch v. Reading Co., 353 U. S. 965. Brinkley v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 358 U. S. 865. Masterson v. New York Central R. Co., post, p. 832. C. Where lower court reversed a jury verdict for the employee and directed a new trial: Banning v. Detroit,…
• Omega Importing Corp. v. Petri-Kine Camera Co., Inc., 451 F.2d 1190 (2d Cir. 1971)
  …ng. Were the trade-marks of the East and West German cameras merely similar, this might mitigate the possibility of confusion. Compare Marks v. Polaroid Corp., 129 F.Supp. 243, 272-273 (D.Mass.1955), aff’d, 237 F. 2d 428 (1 Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 1005, 77 S.Ct. 564, 1 L.Ed.2d 550 (1957). However, in this case, except for reference to the place of manufacture, the names are identical. Consequently, purchaser inspection would be of doubtful value. Moreover, to rely upon clarification through oth…