Legal Opinion

In Re Joint Eastern & Southern Districts Asbestos Litigation

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided April 19, 1991No. 87 Civ. 3459 (RPP)PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT P. PATTERSON, Jr., District Judge.

Plaintiffs move, pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for a new trial on the ground that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence. 1

The plaintiffs argue (1) that the jury concluded that defendants did not know or should not have known of the hazards of asbestos at the time of plaintiffs’ exposures from the late 1930’s to the 1960’s, and (2) that the evidence to the contrary was so compelling as to be overwhelming. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for New Trial (“Plaintiffs’ Mem.”) at…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Victor Bevevino v. M. S. SaydjariCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
  3. George v. Celotex Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
  4. Brink's Inc. v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1982
  5. Agola v. HagnerDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1987

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Findley v. Blinken (In Re Joint Eastern & Southern District Asbestos Litigation)District Court, S.D. New York · 1991
  2. Hollman v. Taser International Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2013
  3. In re New York Asbestos LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1993
  4. Fox v. City University of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1999
  5. Rooney v. TysonDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1997

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API