Legal Opinion
Seefeld v. Crown, Cork & Seal Co., Inc.
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided December 31, 1991No. Civ. 3-90-502PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
DEVITT, District Judge.
INTRODUCTION
In this products liability, diversity action, arising out of injuries caused by an exploding aerosol can, defendant now moves the Court for partial summary judgment asking the Court to find as a matter of law that defendant did not defectively design or manufacture the aerosol can causing the injury and did not have a duty to warn plaintiff of any of the dangers inherent in the can. Jurisdiction is established. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Defendant does not move for summary judgment on Count One or Two in the complaint, (negligence and breach of implied…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Balder v. HaleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Huggins v. Stryker Corp.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2013
- Block v. Toyota Motor Corp.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2014
- American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. v. Amazon.com, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2023
- Bell v. Union Pacific Railroad CompanyDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2021
- Markel v. Douglas Technologies Group, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2019
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.