Adkins v. Dirickson

5 Citing cases

  1. Sherin v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc.

    47 F. Supp. 3d 280 (D. Md. 2014)   Cited 5 times
    Finding that a defendant's internal corporate memoranda establishing actual knowledge was insufficient to establish a duty under Farrar because the plaintiff had not demonstrated "that better warnings by Union Carbide would have altered Mrs. Sherin's take-home exposure"

    โ€œThe quality of a witness's observations is not an issue for foundations; it is a matter for impeachment.โ€ Adkins v. Dirickson, 523 F.Supp. 1281, 1284โ€“85 (E.D.Pa.1981). Mr. Sherin's testimony meets the requirements of Rule 602.

  2. Fierro v. Ruesch Corp.

    610 F. Supp. 778 (E.D. Pa. 1985)   Cited 2 times

    Consequently, even if we concluded upon reflection that plaintiff's motion should have been granted, the error was harmless and would not warrant a new trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 61, Adkins v. Dirickson, 523 F. Supp. 1281 (E.D. Pa. 1981). III. Admission of Evidence in Violation of F.R.E. 402 or 403.

  3. Consol. Rail Corp. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util.

    536 F. Supp. 653 (E.D. Pa. 1982)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that the LIA preempts the field of locomotive equipment and therefore states cannot regulate speed recorders in locomotives

    Because state and federal rules cover the same area, the Railroad Safety Act preempts the state law unless it is saved by the local-hazard exception. Adkins v. Dirickson, 523 F. Supp. 1281, 1283 (E.D.Pa. 1981), appeal docketed, No. 82-1108 (3d Cir. Feb. 24, 1982); see Conrad, The Tachograph As Evidence of Speed, 8 Wayne L.Rev. 287, 288-91 (1962).See 66 Pa.Cons.Stat. ยง 2705(a) (requiring "a device or devices"); note 1 supra; see also sources cited in note 17 supra.

  4. Boston Edison Company v. U.S.

    No. 99-447C (Fed. Cl. Feb. 15, 2005)   Cited 1 times

    The quality of such perceptions should go towards the testimony's weight rather than its credibility. Adkins v. Dirickson, 523 F.Supp. 1281, 1284-85 (E.D. Pa. 1981). Mr. Lubbock's affidavit meets the inexacting threshold for admissibility under Fed.R.Evid. 602. Mr. Lubbock's oversight of the independent public auctions of Boston Edison's fossil-fuel-fired generating and nuclear facilities and discussions with prospective purchasers of Pilgrim during the due diligence and sale process suggest that he is capable of having perceived tendencies on the part of the buyers.

  5. Horner v. Commonwealth

    522 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1987)   Cited 2 times

    Proof of the accuracy of the timing mechanism in the tachograph is essential, especially when dealing with such a small time differential. All parties to this case cite Adkins v. Dirickson, 523 F. Supp. 1281 (E.D. Pa. 1981). This is the only case ostensibly applying Pennsylvania law which has addressed the issue of whether tachographs require a foundation before being admissible.