Legal Opinion

Goodman v. PPG Industries, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 29, 2004PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLally-Green, J.

¶ 1 Appellants, Gary and Marie Goodman, appeal from the order dated January 27, 2003, dismissing their class action complaint against PPG Industries, Inc. (“PPG”). We affirm.

¶ 2 The factual and procedural history of the case is as follows. PPG sold a wood preservative called TBTO PILT (“PILT”) to Marvin Lumber and Cedar Company (“Marvin”). Marvin makes custom-built wood-framed doors and windows for residential customers. Appellants represent a class of residential customers who purchased PILT-treated products from Marvin between 1985 and 1989. Appellants alleged that their homes incurred…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Kassab v. SoyaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  2. Salvador v. Atlantic Steel Boiler Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. REM Coal Co., Inc. v. Clark Equip. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  4. AM/PM Franchise Ass'n v. Atlantic Richfield Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  5. Turney Media Fuel, Inc. v. Toll Bros., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999

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

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  2. Reeves v. Middletown Athletic Ass'nSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  3. Barton v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  4. McLaughlin v. Bayer Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2016
  5. Slemmer v. McGlaughlin Spray Foam Insulation, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2013

41 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