Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc.

475 U.S. 1114, 106 S. Ct. 1626

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided April 21, 1986·No. No. 85-1392·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal from Sup. Ct. Fla. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

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

Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 475 U.S. 1114, 106 S. Ct. 1626 (1986).

Pincite

475 U.S. 1114 (Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Crisman v. Cooper Industries

748 S.W.2d 273 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1988)

Philip H. Eddings, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Scott Philip Eddings, Deceased, on Behalf of Philip H. Eddings, and Virginia Rae Randt, Individually v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., A/K/A Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, a Foreign Corporation, Patricia Ann Griffin, by and Through Her Next Friend and Natural Father, Larry D. Griffin, and Larry D. Griffin, Individually v. Ford Motor Company, Albert v. Verhine, Jr., a Minor, by A. Brennis Verhine, His Legal Guardian and A. Brennis Verhine, and Glenda L. Verhine, His Natural Parents, Individually v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., a Foreign Corporation and Volkswagen of America, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, Dana C. Lamb, a Minor, by and Through His Mother and Next Friend, Jeanne F. Donaldson, Jeanne F. Donaldson, Individually v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, a German Corporation, Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation

835 F.2d 1369 (Eleventh Circuit, 1988)

Eddings ex rel. Eddings v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G.

835 F.2d 1369 (Eleventh Circuit, 1988)