Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01873/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01873-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Borg-Warner Corporation
Appellant
Douglas E. Richison
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

DOUGLAS E. RICHISON, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

Unit.eel States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit. 

JAN 2 61989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v . 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 87-1873 

(D.C. No. CIV 85-735) 

(E. Dist. Okla.) 

BORG-WARNER CORPORATION, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before SEYMOUR, MOORE, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

Defendant Borg-Warner Corporation has appealed the jury 

verdict in favor of plaintiff Douglas E. Richison, arguing that it 

was entitled to a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the 

verdict because there was insufficient evidence to support 

plaintiff ' s contract claim. Defendant alternatively contends that 

a new trial is warranted because the district court committed 

error when it refused to permit the introduction of evidence of 

plaintiff's acceptance of benefits in accordance with the 1982 

commission contract. We have reviewed the entire record and have 

considered defendant's legal arguments on these issues. We agree 

with the district court's conclusion that a directed verdict or 

judgment n.o.v. was not appropriate, and we find no reversible 

error in the court's evidentiary ruling. 

Appellate Case: 87-1873 Document: 01019962386 Date Filed: 01/26/1989 Page: 1 
Defendant also contends that the district court erred when it 

dismissed defendant's counterclaim on statute of limitation 

grounds. On this record, we cannot say that this ruling was 

incorrect. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 87-1873 Document: 01019962386 Date Filed: 01/26/1989 Page: 2