Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. James J. Mclaughlin
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision. The 7 that cite it most often are listed here.
- James G. Wheatley v. Elbert Gladden (4th Cir. 1981)
- CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Peirce (District Court, N.D. West Virginia 2013)
- Steven Michael Burns, by His Next Friend, Lois Gay Burns v. Csx Transportation, Inc., a Virginia Corporation (4th Cir. 1991)
- Federal Savings & Loan Insurance v. Reeves (4th Cir. 1987)
- Handley v. Union Carbide Corp. (District Court, S.D. West Virginia 1985)
- Federal Savings & Loan Insurance v. Williams (District Court, D. Maryland 1985)
- Gairola v. Commonwealth of Virginia Department of General Services (4th Cir. 1985)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee,
v.
James J. McLAUGHLIN, Patrick McLaughlin, Danny Ray Meador, Harry E. Hoskins, Howard Hoskins, Eva Hoskins, Glenn Arlan Chapman, George Harry Chapman, Joseph R. Dickerson and Charles Edward Hogan, Appellants.
No. 14082.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 4, 1970.
Decided July 17, 1970.
Jack A. Mann, and Joseph Luchini, Beckley, W. Va., (Lynch, Mann & Knapp, Beckley, W. Va., on brief) for appellants.
Donald D. Hodson, and Edward M. Payne, III, Beckley, W. Va., (Bowers, File, Hodson & Payne, Beckley, W. Va., on brief) for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, CRAVEN and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The question of permission to drive an automobile and deviation from the scope of permission was submitted to the jury under a fair charge. The jury answered that Danny Ray Meador was driving the vehicle with the permission of the owner under the omnibus clause of the owner's insurance clause.
We think the question was one upon which reasonable men could differ, and was within the province of the jury. It follows, therefore, that the decision of the district judge to enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict was erroneous.
Reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.