Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bayes v. Crane Carrier Co, 95-1012 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-1012 Visitors: 21
Filed: Feb. 09, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1012 RANDOLPH J. BAYES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CRANE CARRIER COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-91-33-L) Submitted: January 30, 1996 Decided: February 9, 1996 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randolph J. Bayes, Appellant Pro Se. G
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1012 RANDOLPH J. BAYES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CRANE CARRIER COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-91-33-L) Submitted: January 30, 1996 Decided: February 9, 1996 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randolph J. Bayes, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory Page Cochran, John Ray Alford, Jr., CASKIE & FROST, P.C., Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Randolph Bayes brought a personal injury action against Crane Carrier Company alleging breach of warranty and negligence in the design and manufacture of a garbage truck on which he was injured. After a two-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Crane Carrier. Bayes appeals. We have reviewed the record and the proceedings in the dis- trict court and have found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order entering judgment on the jury's verdict. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer