§Why CasetextPricing

Patricia Carroll et al v. Abb, Inc. et al

Brief in Support of 228 Motion for Summary Judgment

22 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 240,017 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. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 219,584 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  3. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

    475 U.S. 574 (1986)   Cited 114,814 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

  4. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins

    304 U.S. 64 (1938)   Cited 20,670 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues

  5. Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust

    424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2005)   Cited 268 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"

  6. O'Neil v. Crane Co.

    53 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 203 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that product manufacturer is not liable under any theory for harm caused by a third party's products

  7. Mills v. First Federal Savings Loan Ass'n

    83 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 1996)   Cited 259 times
    Holding that "the subjective beliefs of the plaintiff . . . are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact"

  8. Morden v. Continental AG

    2000 WI 51 (Wis. 2000)   Cited 227 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that the relevant "duty of care requires manufacturers to foresee all reasonable uses and misuses and the consequent foreseeable dangers" of their products "and to act accordingly"

  9. 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' ”

  10. Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc.

    842 F. Supp. 2d 791 (E.D. Pa. 2012)   Cited 85 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "under maritime law, a manufacturer is not liable for harm caused by, and owes no duty to warn of the hazards inherent in, asbestos products that the manufacturer did not manufacture or distribute"

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 334,390 times   159 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 114,093 times   572 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"

  13. Section 895.043 - Punitive damages

    Wis. Stat. § 895.043   Cited 98 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Considering wealth of a defendant in setting punitive damages award