Legal Opinion
Armstrong v. A.C. & S., Inc.
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided December 11, 1986No. C81-179M; No. C84-162M; No. C84-164MPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO LIFT THE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS AND DISMISSING EAGLÉ-PICHER’S SEVENTH CLAIM
McGOVERN, Chief Judge.
INTRODUCTION
This order addresses another issue presented by the third-party action of Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. (E-P) against the United States for indemnity or contribution. This order will be entered in each of the three cases in which the motions relating to Claim Seven were brought and in which the Court made previous rulings concerning other claims. Previous action by the Court resulted in E-P’s claims one, through six being dismissed in Armstrong v.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Feres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- United Air Lines, Inc. v. Janice Wiener and Catherine B. Nollenberger (Excluding Faith C. Paris), United States of America v. Janice WienerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United Air Lines, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Molsbergen v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Manville (Johns) v. Eagle-Picher Industries, IncCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Douglas Attridge, Margaret Attridge, Husband and Wife, Ludwig Heinz, Margie Armstrong v. Johns Manville v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., Defendant/third-Party v. United States of America, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
- Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991