Legal Opinion
Hosley v. Armstrong Cork Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided March 14, 1986No. C6-84-1209PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SCOTT, Justice.
The defendants represent 13 manufacturers of asbestos products to which plaintiff Patrick Hosley was exposed during his employment as an insulator. He contends that his exposure to the asbestos products caused him to contract asbestosis. Two of the defendants, Johns-Manville Corporation and Unarco Industries, filed petitions, after the commencement of Hosley’s suit, for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, Pub.L. No. 95-598, 92 Stat. 2549 (1978) (codified at 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-151326 (1982)). Pursuant to the Act’s automatic stay provision, 11…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pierringer v. HogerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Frey Ex Rel. Frey v. SnelgroveSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- Lines v. RyanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- Transport Leasing Corporation v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
- Hosley v. Armstrong Cork Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
3Cited by29 opinions
- Staab v. Diocese of St. CloudSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- In Re Eastern & Southern Districts Asbestos LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1991
- Johnson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Alice Ann Staab v. Diocese of St. CloudSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
- Schneider v. BuckmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.