Legal Opinion
Fineman v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided June 25, 1991No. Civ. A. 84-3837PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BISSELL, District Judge.
I. FACTS AND BACKGROUND
The present matter arises pursuant to several remaining motions in this action. First, defendant Armstrong has moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 for a new trial, as an alternative to its motion for J.N.O.V. Second, Armstrong has separately moved under Rule 49 (pertaining to inconsistent verdicts) for a new trial. Finally, the plaintiffs have moved for “reformation of the judgment,” requesting this Court to allow them to recover both the tort and antitrust awards.
The latter motion, even if it was not rendered moot by this Court’s Opinion granting…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Dan Lind v. Schenley Industries IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1960
- Roebuck, Dr. James R. v. Drexel UniversityCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- Draper v. Airco, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
- James M. O'ReaR v. Fruehauf Corporation, Defendant-Third-Party Fruehauf Distributing Company v. G. G. Espinoza, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977
- Williamson v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1992
- Kingsepp v. Wesleyan UniversityDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1992
- Kramer v. TribeDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1994
- Griffiths v. Cigna Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
- Jones v. SetserWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2009
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.