Legal Opinion
Brown v. Clark Equipment Co.
District Court, D. Maine
Decided November 24, 1982No. Civ. No. 78-111-BPublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
CYR, District Judge.
The United States Magistrate recommends that plaintiffs be relieved from that portion of the judgment entered on August 11, 19811 which dismissed counts I and IV of their complaint for lack of privity with the defendant manufacturer, because the privity requirement of Maine law was abruptly abolished eight months after judgment, see Adams v. Buffalo Forge Co., Me., 443 A.2d 932 (1982). Plaintiffs moved for relief from judgment within days of the Buffalo Forge decision. The relevant facts are laid out in the attached copy of the recommended…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Ackermann v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Klapprott v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Robert James Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 27Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1972
- Carter v. Yardley & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Gerda Dorothea Deweerth v. Edith Marks Baldinger, Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellant, Wildenstein & Co., Inc., Third-Party-Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
- 30 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 752, prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 12,554 Lloyd D. King v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., the Celotex CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1990
- United States v. BelangerDistrict Court, D. Maine · 1984
- Porter v. PorterSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996
- Schwartz v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1990
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.