Legal Opinion
Berger v. Amchem Products
New York Supreme Court
Decided July 10, 2006PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Helen E. Freedman, J.
In these actions, defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation moves in limine for (i) an order precluding plaintiffs from offering evidence that exposure to automotive friction products causes asbestos disease in motor vehicle mechanics; and (ii) an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 dismissing plaintiffs’ complaints and all cross claims against DaimlerChrysler Corporation in their entirety. Based on the foregoing, both motions are denied. Alternatively, defendant DaimlerChrysler seeks a Frye (United States v Frye, 293 F 1013 [1923]) hearing for the purpose of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. HavnerTexas Supreme Court · 1997
- In Re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2003
- Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Lustenring v. AC&S, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLCSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Kuiper v. Givaudan, Inc.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 2009
- Juni v. A.O. Smith Water ProductsNew York Supreme Court · 2015