Hale v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• acknowledging that comments made by the district court outside the presence of the jury do “not affect the jury”
• \a party may not offer evidence or advance theories during trial which violate the terms of a pretrial order.\
• district court improperly allowed evidence of prior accidents involving “explosive separation of RH5° rims, with no restriction as to the circumstances or the dates of the accidents”
• “An objection at trial on one ground will not enable the objecting party to rely on appeal on other grounds that were not stated in the trial objection.”
• district court improperly allowed evidence of prior accidents involving “explosive separation of RH5E rims, with no restriction as to the circumstances or the dates of the accidents”
• court’s comment in product liability case that he had “put air in a lot of tires, but [he] never had one blow up on [him]” not sufficient for reversal, because this was a minor incident in a lengthy trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Hale v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Hale v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  W.D. Missouri· 1986-03-31· cited 3×