Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1964

Rushton Equipment Company, and Clarence Edward Morse v. Christine Vasilion

Rushton Equipment Company, and Clarence Edward Morse v. Christine Vasilion
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided April 15, 1964 · Rives, Jones, Bootle
330 F.2d 896; 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5704 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Rushton Equipment Company, and Clarence Edward Morse v. Christine Vasilion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.

↑