Legal Opinion

General Electric Co. v. Process Control Co.

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided June 8, 1998PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HOLDER, Justice.

This ease comes to us on a certified question of law. The plaintiff, General Electric Company (“G.E.”), filed this action for contribution against Process Control Company (“Process Control”). Process Control filed a motion to dismiss and/or motion for summary judgment arguing that Tennessee law does not permit a right of contribution in this case. The district court entered an order requesting this Court to address the following certified question of law:

In actions that accrue after the decision in McIntyre v. Balentine, under what circumstances is a claim for…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. McIntyre v. BalentineTennessee Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Owens v. Truckstops of AmericaTennessee Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Camper v. MinorTennessee Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Wisconsin Natural Gas Co. v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Construction Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Banks v. Elks Club Pride of Tennessee 1102Tennessee Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Bass v. Janney Montgomery Scott, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
  3. Autozone, Inc. v. Glidden Co.District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2010
  4. Engstrom v. MayfieldCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
  5. Smith v. Methodist Hospitals of MemphisCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1999

9 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