Legal Opinion

DESPRES v. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp.

District Court, D. Connecticut

Decided September 22, 2008No. Civil 3:07cv1359 (JBA)PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND

JANET BOND ARTERTON, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Lionel Despres and Gladys Despres brought this action, originally filed in Connecticut Superior Court, seeking damages for injuries suffered by Mr. Despres arising out of his occupational exposure to asbestos materials. Defendant Viad Corporation (“Viad”), allegedly the successor-in-interest to Griscom-Russell Company (“Griscom-Russell”), removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Plaintiffs have moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing that Viad lacks a proper basis…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. In Re Agent Orange" Product Liability LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
  3. Isaacson v. Dow Chemical Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
  4. Pantalone v. Aurora Pump Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2008

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Crowder v. Foster Wheeler, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 2009
  2. Froehlich v. CACH, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2013
  3. Rhodes v. MCIC, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2016
  4. State of Hawai'i, Ex. Rel. Anne E. Lopez, Attorney General v. CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C.District Court, D. Hawaii · 2024
  5. State of Hawai'i, Ex. Rel. Anne E. Lopez, Attorney General v. CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C.District Court, D. Hawaii · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API