Tull v. Federal Express Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding computer-generated animation did not represent any substantive addition to expert’s testimony
• finding computer-generated animation did not represent any substantive addition to expert’s testimony
• \An animation can be thought of as a series of diagrams that have been strung together to produce a moving image.\
• \An animation can be thought of as a series of diagrams that have been strung together to produce a moving image.\
• \An animation can be thought of as a series of diagrams that have been strung together to produce a moving image.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In re Amending & Revising Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions-Civil-No. 1.7, 3.26, 6.16, 21.4, 21.7, 23.10, & 23.31
  Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 2009-04-29· cited 5×
• People v. Douglas
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2016-04-21· cited 4×
• In Re Amending & Revising Ouji-Civ
  Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 2009-04-29

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Lewis R. Robinson v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
  Tenth Circuit· 1994-02-15· cited 114×
• Harris v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 2000-10-23· cited 38×
• Dunkle v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 2006-07-07· cited 22×
• American National Bank & Trust Co. of Sapulpa v. BIC Corp.
  Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma· 1994-05-03· cited 11×
• Lawson v. National Steel Erectors Corp.
  Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma· 2000-02-22· cited 5×
• Osborne v. Mollman Water Conditioning, Inc.
  Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma· 2002-12-17· cited 5×
• Martinez v. Moffat
  Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma· 1994-09-06· cited 2×