Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Jack Martinez v. Phillips Petroleum Company

424 F.2d 547

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1970-04-28
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Martinez and others are plaintiffs below and appeal from a judgment dismissing their action on the ground that there is no liability. The district judge, the *548 Honorable Ray McNichols, wrote a careful and detailed opinion in the case which is reported at 283 F.Supp. 514 (1968). As to count one of the complaint, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district judge at 283 F.Supp. pp. 523-533. As to count two of the complaint, we affirm for the reason stated by the district judge under the heading “Issue of Law No. 10 states: ” at 283 F.Supp. pp. 521-523. We express no opinion as to the correctness of his decision under issues 8 and 9, discussed at 283 F.Supp. pp. 518-521.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Jack Martinez v. Phillips Petroleum Company. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
MARTINEZ v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY,424 F.2d 547(9th Cir. 1970)
Jack MARTINEZ et al., Plaintiff-Appellants, v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 23059.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
April 28, 1970.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho; Ray McNichols, Judge.
Weldon Wood (argued), McClenahan Greenfield, Boise, Idaho, for appellants.

J. Tyler Hull (argued), Bogle, Gates, Dobrin, Wakefield Long, Seattle, Wash., Merrill Merrill, Pocatello, Idaho, for appellee.
Before DUNIWAY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and BYRNE, District Judgefn*.
PER CURIAM:
Martinez and others are plaintiffs below and appeal from a judgment dismissing their action on the ground that there is no liability. The district judge, thePage 548Honorable Ray McNichols, wrote a careful and detailed opinion in the case which is reported at283 F. Supp. 514(1968). As to count one of the complaint, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district judge at 283 F. Supp. pp. 523-533. As to count two of the complaint, we affirm for the reason stated by the district judge under the heading "Issue of Law No. 10 states:" at 283 F. Supp. pp. 521-523. We express no opinion as to the correctness of his decision under issues 8 and 9, discussed at 283 F. Supp. pp. 518-521.

Affirmed.
  1. Honorable William M. Byrne, United States District Judge, Central District of California, sitting by designation. ↩