Legal Opinion

O'CONNER v. Commonwealth Edison Co.

District Court, C.D. Illinois

Decided July 23, 1992No. 88-1272PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

MIHM, Chief Judge.

Before the court is a motion by defendants to exclude part of the testimony of plaintiffs causation expert, Dr. Karl Scher-ibel, and defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment based on the evidence then remaining in the case. This court grants both of defendants’ motions for the reasons stated herein.

I. INTRODUCTION TO THIS CASE

The plaintiff, James R. O’Conner (“O’Conner”), worked at a nuclear power plant and then later developed a medical condition, including bilateral cataracts, that he claims was caused by the radiation exposure that he…

2Cases cited48 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  3. Jules R. Viterbo, Et Ux, (Patricia Viterbo) v. The Dow Chemical Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1987
  4. Wilson v. ClarkIllinois Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Mid-State Fertilizer Co., Lasley Kimmel, and Maxine Kimmel v. Exchange National Bank of ChicagoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Broders v. HeiseTexas Supreme Court · 1996
  2. James R. O'COnner v. Commonwealth Edison Company and London Nuclear Services, Inc., and United States of America, Intervenor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
  3. Hall v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.District Court, D. Oregon · 1996
  4. Soto v. GaytanAppellate Court of Illinois · 2000
  5. Whiting v. Boston Edison Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1995

25 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