Legal Opinion
Hosley v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided February 24, 1987No. C3-86-1429PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CRIPPEN, Judge.
This appeal comes to us following an initial appeal to this court and the Minnesota Supreme Court, and a remand to the trial court. Both parties appeal the trial court’s determination that a finding of un-collectibility under the reallocation provision of Minnesota Statutes § 604.02, subd. 2 (1984) is premature as applied to a party to the transaction who was not a party to the lawsuit. We affirm.
FACTS
I. INITIAL JUDGMENT
This products liability action was brought against thirteen manufacturers of asbestos products. The trial court severed all claims against two of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Frey Ex Rel. Frey v. SnelgroveSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- Connar v. West Shore Equipment of Milwaukee, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
- Lines v. RyanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- Hosley v. Armstrong Cork Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Hosley v. Armstrong Cork Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
3Cited by5 opinions
- Schneider v. BuckmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Johnson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Staab v. Diocese of St. CloudCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013
- Hosley v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Schneider v. BuckmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988