Legal Opinion

Amader v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided July 26, 1982No. 79-4546PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BENCH OPINION REGARDING PRODUCT LINE EXCEPTION TO SUCCESSOR LIABILITY

TROUTMAN, District Judge.

In this asbestos case, plaintiffs have, on the eve of trial, filed an in limine motion seeking admission of evidence relating to the product line exception to successor liability together with appropriate jury instructions, should the plaintiffs succeed at trial in establishing the necessary basis and the requirements for the application of said exception. The defendant, Pittsburgh Corning, objects contending that the exception is not the law of Pennsylvania and that the basis for its application…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Commissioner v. Estate of BoschSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. West v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
  4. Clarence Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Nationalsurety Corporation, Intervenor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
  5. Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public EducationSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Burnside v. Abbott LaboratoriesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Commonwealth v. LavelleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Reed v. Armstrong Cork Co.District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1983
  4. TRACEY BY TRACEY v. Winchester Repeating Arms Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1990
  5. Schweitzer v. Consolidated Rail Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1986

19 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