Unpublished Dispositionrichard J. Menge, Appellant, v. the Burton Company, Appellee, 824 F.2d 980 (Fed. Cir. 1987)

DECISION

The decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, denying appellant Menge's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in Case No. 84-CV-0137-DT, is affirmed.

OPINION

The issues were fairly presented before the jury and the trial court, including the questions urged before us of who had knowledge of what, and whether there were obligations, representations, or inducements, express or implied, and their legal effect. There was substantial evidence supporting the jury's answers to the questions presented to it. See Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 618-19, 225 USPQ 634, 636 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed, 106 S. Ct. 340 (1985). We have considered all the arguments made by appellant, but we discern no error in the district court's statement of the law, or in the court's analysis of the evidence and the inferences the jury could reasonably have drawn therefrom. See Weinar v. Rollform, Inc., 744 F.2d 797, 805, 223 USPQ 369, 373 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1084 (1985).