§Why CasetextPricing

Leonard et al v. CBS Corporation et al

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANT GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION

11 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 235,761 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

  2. Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge Dock

    513 U.S. 527 (1995)   Cited 924 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the location test was satisfied when a crane, attached to a barge, was used to lift and replace pilings around a bridge pier and a tunnel flooded after an accident

  3. Sisson v. Ruby

    497 U.S. 358 (1990)   Cited 560 times
    Holding that storing a vessel at a marina on navigable waters substantially relates to traditional maritime activity

  4. Ame. Eagle Outrs. v. Lyle Scott

    584 F.3d 575 (3d Cir. 2009)   Cited 712 times
    Holding that the parties' agreement to consent to the registration of each other's eagle marks was a binding contract

  5. Pignataro v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J

    593 F.3d 265 (3d Cir. 2010)   Cited 422 times
    Finding that the classification of certain employees was not willful when it was based upon consultation with the defendant's legal department

  6. Reliance Insurance Company v. Moessner

    121 F.3d 895 (3d Cir. 1997)   Cited 430 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding the provision unambiguous in a case involving carbon monoxide poisoning because of its plain language, but finding that, under Pennsylvania law, the insured's reasonable expectations could override the plain meaning

  7. 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"

  8. Various Plaintiffs v. Various Defendants

    673 F. Supp. 2d 358 (E.D. Pa. 2009)   Cited 120 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting remand because "defendants were content to let the cases languish in state court"

  9. Mack v. Gen. Elec. Co.

    896 F. Supp. 2d 333 (E.D. Pa. 2012)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that "the 'sophisticated purchaser' defense is not available under maritime law in cases involving asbestos"

  10. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,071 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  11. Section 1333 - Admiralty, maritime and prize cases

    28 U.S.C. § 1333   Cited 4,490 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Granting federal district courts original jurisdiction over "[a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction"