Rushton Equipment Company, and Clarence Edward Morse v. Christine Vasilion
This text of 330 F.2d 896 (Rushton Equipment Company, and Clarence Edward Morse v. Christine Vasilion) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The sole question is whether there was such substantial evidence that the defendant “wantonly injured the plaintiff” as to justify the submission of that issue to the jury. We agree with the district court that there was. See Roberts v. McCall, 1944, 245 Ala. 359, 17 So.2d 159; Godfrey v. Vinson, 1926, 215 Ala. 166, 110 So. 13.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
330 F.2d 896, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rushton-equipment-company-and-clarence-edward-morse-v-christine-vasilion-ca5-1964.