David Dickman, D/b/a/ Dickman Excavating, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Ford New Holland, Inc., a Corporation, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee

9 F.3d 1551 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. David DICKMAN, d/b/a/ Dickman Excavating, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. FORD NEW HOLLAND, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Nos. 92-35200, 92-35230. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 6, 1993. Decided Oct. 25, 1993. Before: GOODWIN, SCHROEDER, and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 This is a dispute over the sale of a tractor/backhoe to a Montana excavator. Dickman, the purchaser, contends that Ford New Holland, the seller, misrepresented the tractor's vintage. Dickman sued for fraud, and, after a jury trial, obtained a judgment in the amount of $62,000. Ford New Holland appeals, contending that the trial court erred in entering the $62,000 judgment. Dickman appeals the trial court's failure to provide the jury with an actual malice punitive damages instruction, and appeals the district court's denial of Dickman's motion for attorney's…