Legal Opinion
Armstrong v. A.C. & S., Inc.
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided August 15, 1986No. C81-179MPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DISMISSING EIGHTH AND NINTH CLAIMS AND STAYING SEVENTH CLAIM
McGOVERN, Chief Judge.
INTRODUCTION
In Margie Armstrong v. A.C. & S., et al., No. C81-179M; Ludwig Heinz v. A.C. & S., et at, No. C84-164M; and Douglas Attridge v. A.C. & S., et al., No. C84-162M, each Plaintiff alleges injury from exposure to asbestos-containing products during their employment at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS). The present motions to dismiss in each case relate to the third-party claims of Eagle-Picher Industries (third-party plaintiff) against the United States (third-party defendant) for indemnity or…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- Glass v. Stahl Specialty CompanyWashington Supreme Court · 1982
- Higley v. Weyerhaeuser Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1975
- Winterroth v. Meats, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1973
- Lopez v. Johns ManvilleDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1986
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Manville (Johns) v. Eagle-Picher Industries, IncCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Douglas Attridge, Margaret Attridge, Husband and Wife, Ludwig Heinz, Margie Armstrong v. Johns Manville v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., Defendant/third-Party v. United States of America, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
- Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991