Legal Opinion

Ulvedal v. Heidelberg Eastern, Inc.

District Court, D. Connecticut

Decided May 8, 1991No. B-89-73 (WWE)PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

RULING ON DEPENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION

EGINTON, District Judge.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Yngve Ulvedal commenced this products liability action against defendants Heidelberg Eastern, Inc. and Heidelberg Druckmaschinen, A.G. (“Heidelberg”) seeking damages for injuries sustained allegedly as a result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of an offset press manufactured and distributed by the defendants. Plaintiff Ulvedal’s employer, Strouts Lithographies, Inc. (“Strouts”), moved to intervene in October, 1990. The motion to intervene was granted without objection and Strouts…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. L. Cohen & Co., Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1986
  2. Kearney v. Philips Industries, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1989

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Malatesta v. Mitsubishi Aircraft International, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API