Norwilton Murray v. Fairbanks Morse, Beloit Power Systems, Inc., in No. 78-2224. Cross Appeal of Norwilton Murray, in No. 78-2225

How courts have described this case

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

• distinguishing between causation-in-fact and proximate cause based on foreseeability and intervening acts
• “Counsel’s failure to object precludes him from seeking a new trial on the grounds of the impropriety of opposing counsel’s remarks.”
• “Counsel’s failure to object precludes him from seeking a new trial on the grounds of the impropriety of opposing counsel’s closing remarks.”
• “Counsel’s failure to object precludes him from seeking a new trial on the grounds of the impropriety of opposing counsel’s closing remarks.”
• “Counsel’s failure to object precludes him from seeking a new trial on the grounds of the impropriety of opposing counsel’s closing remarks.”
• \Counsel's failure to object precludes him from seeking a new trial on the grounds of the impropriety of opposing counsel's closing remarks.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).