Legal Opinion
Long v. Krueger, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided April 21, 1988No. Civ. A. 86-4235PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
VAN ANTWERPEN, District Judge.
Before me are DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, filed by defendant Krueger, Inc. (Krueger) on November 17, 1987, and MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANT, CUTLER-FEDERAL, INC. (Cutler), filed November 19, 1987. Defendants claim that plaintiff has not and cannot prove who manufactured a certain stool which allegedly injured the plaintiff. After hearing oral argument on these motions and after reviewing the briefs of counsel, I feel I should grant both motions.
The applicable law has been stated many times. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) instructs…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Commissioner v. Estate of BoschSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Colacicco v. Apotex, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2006
- Hurt v. Philadelphia Housing AuthorityDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1992
- Zands v. NelsonDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1992
- Pennfield Corp. v. Meadow Valley Electric, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Barron v. Martin-Marietta Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1994
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.