§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Joann H. Suttner,, Respondent,v.A.W. Chesterton Company, et al., Defendants, Crane Co., Appellant.

Brief

40 Cited authorities

  1. Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

    96 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 390 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that handgun manufacturers do not owe a duty of reasonable care in the marketing and distribution of their handguns to persons injured or killed through the use of illegally obtained handguns, but leaving open the question of retailers' liability

  2. Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust

    424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2005)   Cited 266 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a mere showing that defendant's product was present somewhere at plaintiffs place of work is insufficient [to establish causation,]" and rather that a plaintiff must show "a high enough level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural"

  3. Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implant Recipients v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.

    97 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 1996)   Cited 331 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]hen analyzing questions of federal law, the transferee court should apply the law of the circuit in which it is located"

  4. O'Neil v. Crane Co.

    53 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 201 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that product manufacturer is not liable under any theory for harm caused by a third party's products

  5. Codling v. Paglia

    32 N.Y.2d 330 (N.Y. 1973)   Cited 443 times
    Holding manufacturer liable for defective product "provided that" plaintiff could not by exercise of reasonable care have discovered the defect and perceived its danger or otherwise averted his injury

  6. Micallef v. Miehle Co.

    39 N.Y.2d 376 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 384 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting obviousness of the danger as a complete bar to negligence claims but retaining it with respect to strict product liability claims

  7. Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire Co.

    79 N.Y.2d 289 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 235 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding there is no duty to warn about another manufacturer's product when defendant manufactured only sound products and had "no control over the production" of the defective products at issue in the case

  8. Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories

    26 Cal.3d 588 (Cal. 1980)   Cited 320 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding DES manufacturers liable under California law in proportion to their market shares

  9. Konstantin v. 630 Third Ave. Assocs. (In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litig.)

    121 A.D.3d 230 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 115 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a duty to warn may arise in such a situation

  10. Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc.

    171 Cal.App.4th 564 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 102 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting the argument that the component parts doctrine “applies only ‘to manufacturers of fungible, multi-use components that can be used for myriad purposes' ”

  11. Section 524 - Effect of discharge

    11 U.S.C. § 524   Cited 6,144 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Enjoining "an act to collect, recover, or offset any such debt" without specifying that only current creditors are enjoined

  12. Section 500.1 - General requirements

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.1   Cited 1 times

    (a) All papers shall comply with applicable statutes and rules, particularly the signing requirement of section 130-1.1 -a of this Title. (b) Papers filed. Papers filed means briefs, papers submitted pursuant to sections 500.10 and 500.11 of this Part, motion papers, records and appendices. (c) Method of reproduction. All papers filed may be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black image on white paper. Reproduction on both sides of the paper is encouraged. (d) Designation