Legal Opinion
Hover v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided June 9, 1986No. C.M.L. No. 8. Civ. Nos. H-82-465(AHN), H-82-739(AHN), H-84-893(AHN) to H-84-897(AHN), H-84-941(AHN) and H-85-433(AHN)PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON BELL ASBESTOS’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
NEVAS, District Judge.
Bell Asbestos Mines, Limited (“Bell Asbestos”) is one of many defendants in the nine asbestos actions, based on diversity jurisdiction, captioned above and designated as C.M.L. No. 8. Plaintiffs seek damages for injuries caused by exposure to asbestos products at their place of employment, Raybestos-Manhattan Friction Materials Company (“Raymark”), 1 located in Stratford, Connecticut. Raymark had purchased asbestos ore from Bell Asbestos. Bell Asbestos is a foreign corporation, incorporated under the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Milliken v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- United States v. The Montreal Trust Company, and Tillie v. Lechtzier, Executors of the Estateof Isidor J. Klein, DeceasedCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966
- William F. Buckley, Jr. v. New York Post CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Ensign-Bickford Co. v. ICI EXPLOSIVES USA INC.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1993
- United States Surgical Corp. v. Imagyn Medical Technologies, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1998
- In Re Connecticut Asbestos LitigationDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1986
- Knauss v. Ultimate Nutrition, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2007