Ginny v. White Jimmie D. White v. Ford Motor Company, a Delaware Corporation, and Orscheln Company, a Missouri Corporation

Ninth Circuit

Ginny v. White Jimmie D. White v. Ford Motor Company, a Delaware Corporation, and Orscheln Company, a Missouri Corporation

335 F.3d 833, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 7384, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5853, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 13541, 2003 WL 21513213

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 3, 2003

Docket99-15185

StatusPublished

Cited by39 cases

This text of 335 F.3d 833 (Ginny v. White Jimmie D. White v. Ford Motor Company, a Delaware Corporation, and Orscheln Company, a Missouri Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ginny v. White Jimmie D. White v. Ford Motor Company, a Delaware Corporation, and Orscheln Company, a Missouri Corporation, 335 F.3d 833, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 7384, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5853, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 13541, 2003 WL 21513213 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The majority opinion filed on December 3, 2002, is amended as follows.

At page 18, lines 19-21 of the slip opinion, delete the sentence ‘We need not decide whether the district court abused its discretion in allowing the opinion into evidence in this case, because we reverse on other grounds.” Also, delete footnote 26, referred to at the end of that sentence. Substitute the sentence, “Nevertheless, we cannot say that the district judge abused his discretion in allowing the opinion into evidence in this case.”

With these amendments, the petition for rehearing is denied. No further petitions for rehearing may be filed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

The majority opinion filed on December 3, 2002, is amended as follows.

At page 18, lines 19-21 of the slip opinion, delete the sentence ‘We need not decide whether the district court abused its discretion in allowing the opinion into evidence in this case, because we reverse on other grounds.” Also, delete footnote 26, referred to at the end of that sentence. Substitute the sentence, “Nevertheless, we cannot say that the district judge abused his discretion in allowing the opinion into evidence in this case.”

With these amendments, the petition for rehearing is denied. No further petitions for rehearing may be filed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

335 F.3d 833, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 7384, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5853, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 13541, 2003 WL 21513213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ginny-v-white-jimmie-d-white-v-ford-motor-company-a-delaware-ca9-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack