Legal Opinion
Kohr v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 14, 1981No. Civ. A. 78-3942PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
TROUTMAN, District Judge.
In a previous memorandum and order this Court denied a motion for summary judgment by defendant Raybestos-Manhattan (RM) on the grounds that a genuine issue of material fact concerning the date on which plaintiffs’ claims arose precluded entry of summary judgment. Kohr v. Johns-Manville Corp., 87 F.R.D. 750 (E.D. Pa.1980). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) and Hollinger v. Wagner Mining Equipment Co., 505 F.Supp. 894 (E.D.Pa.1981). RM, now moving for reconsideration, argues that the issue of when plaintiffs’ claims arose is crucial only to cross-claims of…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Webb v. ZernSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
- Reed v. the YakaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. FieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Cudahy Packing Co. Of Nebraska v. ParramoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Jackson v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Bowman v. AbramsonDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1982
- Kohr v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
- Amader v. Johns-Manville Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
- Robbins v. SeekampSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1982
- Toledo v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1992
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.