§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation.--------------------------------Doris Kay Dummitt,, Respondent,v.A.W. Chesterton, et al., Defendants, Crane Co., Appellant.

Brief

57 Cited authorities

  1. Daimler AG v. Bauman

    571 U.S. 117 (2014)   Cited 5,585 times   236 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"

  2. Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.

    487 U.S. 500 (1988)   Cited 1,163 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where evidence in a civil trial does not suffice to support a jury verdict for plaintiff under a properly formulated defense, judgment may be entered for defendant on appeal despite the fact that defendant did not object to jury instructions "that expressed the defense differently, and in a fashion that would support a verdict"

  3. Leite v. Crane Co.

    749 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 1,004 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defense contractor properly removed a case under § 1442 based, in part, on "the Navy's detailed specifications regulating the warnings that equipment manufacturers were required to provide"

  4. Liriano v. Hobart Corp.

    92 N.Y.2d 232 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 476 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that no duty to warn exists when hazards are known through "general knowledge"

  5. Tot v. United States

    319 U.S. 463 (1943)   Cited 734 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding a presumption that a person obtained a gun through interstate commerce based on proof of past convictions to be unreasonable

  6. Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty Corp.

    92 N.Y.2d 544 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 328 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Burgos, in contrast, the court found that summary judgment was not appropriate despite the intruder requirement because "the plaintiff in her affidavit stated that she did not recognize her assailants, although she lived in a relatively small building and was familiar with all of the building's tenants and their families."

  7. Cornell v. 360 West 51st Street Realty, LLC

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2096 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 148 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Reversing denial of summary judgment in toxic tort case that included IIED claim because plaintiff failed to satisfy Parker causation standard

  8. Ruppel v. CBS Corp.

    701 F.3d 1176 (7th Cir. 2012)   Cited 139 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the CBS corporation was "acting under" the federal government because it "worked hand-in-hand with the government, assisting the federal government in building warships."

  9. Moore v. Ford Motor Co.

    332 S.W.3d 749 (Mo. 2011)   Cited 142 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a plaintiff to “show that a warning would have altered the behavior of the individuals involved in the accident”

  10. 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

  11. Section 899 - Art. 99. Misbehavior before the enemy

    10 U.S.C. § 899   Cited 5 times

    Any member of the armed forces who before or in the presence of the enemy- (1) runs away; (2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend; (3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property; (4) casts away his arms or ammunition; (5) is guilty of cowardly conduct; (6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage; (7) causes false