Legal Opinion
Cantaline v. Raymark Industries, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Florida
Decided November 15, 1984No. Nos. 82-8475-CIV, 82-8511-CIV, 83-8434-CIV, 84-8072-CIV and 83-8536-CIVPublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GONZALEZ, District Judge.
IN THIS ACTION Florida Power & Light (“FPL”), a non-party to these consolidated cases, moves to quash a subpoena duces tecum served on it by plaintiffs John and Kathy Griffiths.1
Plaintiffs’ action seeks damages for injuries they sustained incident to John Griffiths exposure to defendants’ asbestos products. Presumably, although not expressly stated in the complaint, John Griffiths worked at one or more of FPL’s power plants, where one or more defendants supplied or installed the asbestos materials that allegedly caused plaintiffs’ injuries.
As part of their discovery,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Covey Oil Co. v. Continental Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1965
- Wright v. Jeep Corp.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1982
- Celanese Corporation & Fiber Industries, Inc. v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1973
- Collins & Aikman Corp. v. J. P. Stevens & Co.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1971
- Pollitt v. Mobay Chemical Corp.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1982
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Badman v. StarkDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1991
- Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc. v. SinibaldiDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1992
- Bailey Industries, Inc. v. CLJP, Inc.District Court, N.D. Florida · 2010
- First American Corp. v. Price Waterhouse LLPDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1998
- Dominguez v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 1993
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.