Legal Opinion

Pancratz v. Monsanto Co.

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided April 17, 1996No. 94-1769PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NEUMAN, Justice.

This appeal involves the “mere continuation” exception to the general rule of nonlia-bility for successor corporations. Appellant Monsanto Company, seeking indemnity from a corporation for injuries sustained when a worker on Monsanto’s building fell from a defective ladder installed by the corporation’s predecessor, urged an expansive application of the exception. The district court rejected Monsanto’s argument and determined the successor corporation was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Because we believe the directed verdict was not entered in error, we affirm.

I.…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Turner v. Bituminous Casualty Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Raymond Leannais and Catherine Leannais v. Cincinnati, Incorporated and Cincinnati-Forte Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1977
  3. Smith v. Smithway Motor Xpress, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1990
  4. Cyr v. B. Offen & Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1974
  5. Clarence Tucker, Jr. And Jean Tucker v. Paxson MacHine Company, William Thropp & Sons Company, Division of J.M.L. Trading CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1981

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. A. David Ostrem, Sr. v. Prideco Secure Loan Fund, LpSupreme Court of Iowa · 2014
  2. Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
  3. Webster Industries, Inc. v. Northwood Doors, Inc.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 2004
  4. Adler v. I & M Rail Link, L.L.C.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 1998
  5. Garcia v. Coe Manufacturing Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1997

11 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