Hamilton Copper & Steel Corporation, Plaintiff/counter-Defendant/appellant v. Primary Steel, Inc., Defendant/counter-Claimant/appellee

Good Law
898 F.2d 1428·1990 WL 30054·1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 4105
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 23, 199088-5834, 88-6021California1,792 words

Opinion

Opinion

Norris, J.

Background

Appellant Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. (“Hamilton”), a steel pipe importer, alleged that Primary Steel, Inc. (“Primary”), a steel pipe wholesaler, breached its “contract” by failing to pay for steel pipe that was sold and delivered to Primary. The district court held a bifurcated trial in which the first issue presented to the jury was whether the documents and correspondence between Hamilton and Primary constituted a contract. The district court instructed counsel out of the presence of the jury not to refer to the documents as a contract or agreement because that was an issue to be decided by the jury.

During two and one-half days of trial, counsel for Hamilton made 52 references to the documents and on nine occasions he referred to them as a contract. On several of these occasions, the court admonished counsel for using the words contract or agreement and instructed the jury that whether the documents constituted a contract was an issue for the jury to decide.

On the opening of the third day of trial, Hamilton moved for a mistrial and Primary did not oppose it. Hamilton gave as the basis for its motion the judge’s instructions to the jury about what constituted a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.