§Why CasetextPricing

Mains, et al v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc

REPLY to Response to 189 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law

6 Cited authorities

  1. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union

    466 U.S. 485 (1984)   Cited 1,626 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the clear-error standard "does not inhibit an appellate court's power to correct errors of law, including ... a finding of fact that is predicated on a misunderstanding of the governing rule of law"

  2. Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company

    241 Conn. 199 (Conn. 1997)   Cited 168 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a in a design defect case, a jury may consider the cost and feasibility of an alternative or improved design

  3. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. v. A. Secondino Sons

    832 F. Supp. 40 (D. Conn. 1993)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that the CPLA does not cover claims addressed to negligent repairs and service performed after the product is placed in the stream of commerce

  4. Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 6   Cited 50,129 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

  5. Rule 50 - Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 50   Cited 13,789 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Allowing "renewed motion"

  6. Section 52-572m - Product liability actions. Definitions

    Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m   Cited 234 times
    Defining a "product liability claim" as "all claims or actions brought for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by the manufacture, construction, design, formula, preparation, assembly, installation, testing, warnings, instructions, marketing, packaging or labeling of any product"