Legal Opinion

Austin v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided January 17, 1984PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McKUSICK, Chief Justice.

Invoking the mechanism for state-federal judicial co-operation authorized by 4 M.R. S.A. § 57 (Supp.1982-1983) and M.R.Civ.P. 76B, the United States District Court for the District of Maine has certified to our court the following question of Maine law:

Is Maine’s comparative negligence statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 156 [1980], applicable to plaintiff’s claim in this action based on 14 M.R.S.A. § 221 [1980]?

Our answer is yes, but in only the limited way described in this opinion.

I. Factual and Statutory Background

The certified question has arisen in the course of a federal…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Co.California Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Daly v. General Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Margaret Austin, Etc. v. Unarco Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1983
  5. Henderson v. Ford Motor CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 1974

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

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. Owens v. Truckstops of AmericaTennessee Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Lippard v. Houdaille Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1986
  3. Bernier v. Raymark Industries, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1986
  4. King v. Kayak Manufacturing Corp.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Dennis v. American Honda Motor Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1991

35 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