Reagan v. Sinclair Refining Company

9 Citing cases

  1. Dietz v. Consolidated Oil Gas, Inc.

    643 F.2d 1088 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that district court properly admitted property owner's opinion testimony that was “based on more than naked conjecture”

    The court's decision not to expound further on this issue with a separate interrogatory was hardly an abuse of discretion. See Reagan v. Sinclair Refining Co., 319 F.2d 363, 366 (5th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 956, 84 S.Ct. 975, 11 L.Ed.2d 974 (1964). As to the second requested interrogatory, we are unable to understand how an affirmative answer to it would have excused Consolidated from liability.

  2. Scott v. Fancher

    369 F.2d 842 (5th Cir. 1966)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that ancillary jurisdiction over a cross-claim between the two Oklahoma defendants was proper where the plaintiff was a citizen of Texas

    There was no abuse of discretion in this case. Reagin v. Sinclair Refining Company, 319 F.2d 363, 364 (5 Cir. 1963); Miller's Nat. Ins. Co., Chicago, Ill. v. Wichita Flour M. Co., 257 F.2d 93, 100, 76 A.I.R.2d 385 (10 Cir. 1958). We have carefully considered all of the contentions of the appellants and find no merit in them.

  3. Pennsylvania Natl. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Nathan

    361 F.2d 18 (5th Cir. 1966)   Cited 7 times

    We have considered Pennsylvania's complaints regarding the district court's refusal to submit additional issues inquiring of "scope of employment" and "Texas employee". The issues and instructions upon which the court submitted the case to the jury completely and adequately presented all matters raised by Pennsylvania. As the requested issues would have duplicated and overlapped those used, the court quite properly refused the additional issues preferred by Pennsylvania. Reagan v. Sinclair Ref. Co., 319 F.2d 363, 366 (5th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 956, 84 S.Ct. 975, 11 L.Ed.2d 974 (1964). Affirmed.

  4. United States v. Robertson

    354 F.2d 877 (5th Cir. 1966)   Cited 16 times
    Recognizing viability of claim for severance damages based on prospective buyers' likely fear of hazards arising from construction of power line carrying high voltage electricity

    "Hardly anywhere does the inherent nature of an adversary trial commit so much to the careful, but wide and flexible, discretion of the Judge. See Reagan v. Sinclair Refining Co., 5 Cir., 1963, 319 F.2d 363."

  5. Weekes v. Michigan Chrome Chemical Company

    352 F.2d 603 (6th Cir. 1965)   Cited 21 times
    Ceasing the choice-of-law inquiry after determining that the two states would apply "identical principles" to the question at issue

    Salem v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31, 35, 82 S.Ct. 1119, 1122, 8 L.Ed.2d 313 (1962) (Emphasis supplied.) See also Krizak v. W.C. Brooks Sons, 320 F.2d 37, 42 (CA 4, 1963); Reagan v. Sinclair Ref. Co., 319 F.2d 363, 364-365 (CA 5, 1963); cert. denied, 376 U.S. 956, 84 S.Ct. 975, 11 L.Ed.2d 974 (1964); Rhynard v. Filori, 315 F.2d 176, 178 (CA 8, 1963); Cohen v. Western Hotels, Inc., 276 F.2d 26, 27 (CA 9, 1960); Harris v. Afran Transp. Co., 252 F.2d 536 (CA 3, 1958); E.L. Farmer Co. v. Hooks, 239 F.2d 547, 553 (CA 10, 1956), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 911, 77 S.Ct. 699, 1 L. Ed.2d 665 (1957); Schillie v. Atchison, T. S.F. Ry., 222 F.2d 810, 814 (CA 8, 1955). III) Claim of inadequate and improper instructions.

  6. Tugwell v. A.F. Klaveness Company

    320 F.2d 866 (5th Cir. 1963)   Cited 26 times

    Hardly anywhere does the inherent nature of an adversary trial commit so much to the careful, but wide and flexible, discretion of the Judge. See Reagan v. Sinclair Refining Co., 5 Cir., 1963, 319 F.2d 363. The second complaint oddly enough relates to the use of another form required under the Longshoremen's Act as between the stevedoring company, the employer, and the injured employee.

  7. Logsdon v. Baker

    366 F. Supp. 332 (D.D.C. 1973)   Cited 7 times

    It is for this reason that the qualification of an expert witness and the limitations imposed on his testimony are left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Salem v. United States Lines, 370 U.S. 31, 35, 82 S.Ct. 1119, 8 L.Ed.2d 313 (1962); Reagan v. Sinclair Refining Co., 319 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 956, 84 S.Ct. 975, 11 L.Ed.2d 974 (1964); Harvey's Inc., v. A. C. Electric Co., 207 A.2d 660 (D.C.App. 1965). As the Supreme Court said in Salem, "the trial judge has broad discretion in the matter of the admission or exclusion of expert evidence, and his action is to be sustained unless manifestly erroneous."

  8. State v. Sartain

    618 P.2d 1144 (Haw. 1980)   Cited 2 times

    The receipt of opinion or conclusion evidence and the extent to which it will be received are matters resting largely in the discretion of the court. Sherry v. Asing, 56 Haw. 135, 531 P.2d 648 (1975); Reagan v. Sinclair Refining Co., 319 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1963); cert. denied, 376 U.S. 956 (1964); Joseph A. Bass Co. v. United States, 340 F.2d 842 (8th Cir. 1965); Thomas v. Cagwin, 43 Ill. App.2d 336, 193 N.E.2d 233 (1963); Batten v. South Seattle Water Co., 65 Wn.2d 547, 398 P.2d 719 (1965). The foundation for opinion evidence is also a matter within the discretion of the trial court.

  9. Bass v. General Motors Corporation

    447 S.W.2d 443 (Tex. Civ. App. 1968)   Cited 8 times
    In Bass, the plaintiff parked his car and returned six hours later to find the car on fire. Bass sued General Motors under several theories, including negligence and breach of warranty, alleging that the vehicle's defective wiring caused the fire.

    The trial court has wide discretion in rejecting opinion testimony and its action will not be reviewed except for abuse. Urquhart v. Barnes, 335 S.W.2d 666 (Tex.Civ.App., 1960, no writ hist.), and whether or not a person offered as an expert possesses the required qualifications is also within the discretion of the trial judge. His ruling will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse. Rhinetubes, Inc., v. Norddeutscher Lloyd, 335 S.W.2d 269 (Tex.Civ.App., 1960, ref., n.r.e.); Reagan v. Sinclair Ref. Co., 319 F.2d 363 (5th Cir., 1963). Whether Wallace was called upon to testify as an expert, or merely to give his opinion as a used car dealer, is immaterial for plaintiff has failed to show abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in ruling on the excluded question and answer.