Legal Opinion

Abarca v. FRANKLIN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. California

Decided August 31, 2011No. 2:07-cr-00388Published

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION RE: BAC DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. (PHASE 1)

OLIVER W. WANGER, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Defendants Merck & Co., Inc. Amsted Industries Inc., and Baltimore Aircoil Company, Inc. (collectively, “BAC Defendants”) bring this motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”), or in the alternative, motion for new trial following jury verdicts in the first phase (“Phase 1”) of this multi-party, multi-phase toxic tort case.

According to Defendants, Plaintiffs either failed to present or presented insufficient…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. General Electric Co. v. JoinerSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  4. Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  5. Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993

10 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