Legal Opinion
Liriano v. Hobart Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided November 13, 1996No. 94 Civ. 5279 (SAS)PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion and Order
SCHEINDLIN, District Judge.
Defendants Hobart Corporation (“Hobart”) and Super Associated (“Super”) filed motions for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on October 21, 1996. On September 27, 1996, plaintiff moved for amendment of the retrial verdict. For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion is denied and plaintiffs motion is granted.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This lawsuit stems from on-the-job injuries Liriano sustained when his hand was caught in a commercial meat grinder in 1998. As a result of this accident, Liriano…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Samuel S. SONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IVES LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
- John Boucher v. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Colon Ex Rel. Molina v. Bic USA, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2001
- Barrett v. Rhodia, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2010
- In Re Zyprexa Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2007
- Schwab v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2006
- Katt v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2001
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.