Jack Martinez v. Phillips Petroleum Company
Jack MARTINEZ Et Al., Plaintiff-Appellants, v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Martinez and others are plaintiffs below and appeal from a judgment dismissing their action on the ground that there is no liability. The district judge, the *548 Honorable Ray McNichols, wrote a careful and detailed opinion in the case which is reported at 283 F.Supp. 514 (1968). As to count one of the complaint, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district judge at 283 F.Supp. pp. 523-533. As to count two of the complaint, we affirm for the reason stated by the district judge under the heading “Issue of Law No. 10 states: ” at 283 F.Supp. pp. 521-523. We express no opinion as to the correctness of his decision under issues 8 and 9, discussed at 283 F.Supp. pp. 518-521.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.