Rushton Equipment Company, and Clarence Edward Morse v. Christine Vasilion
330 F.2d 896, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5704
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
Rushton Equipment Company, and Clarence Edward Morse v. Christine Vasilion, 330 F.2d 896, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5704 (5th Cir. 1964).
330 F.2d 896 (Rushton Equipment Company, and Clarence Edward Morse v. Christine Vasilion) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Roberts v. McCall
17 So. 2d 159 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1944)
Godfrey v. Vinson
110 So. 13 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1926)