Florom v. Elliott Manufacturing
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge.
This appeal arises from the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant, a successor corporation, is liable for the injuries suffered while the plaintiff was using a hydraulic crane manufactured and sold by the defendant’s predecessor corporation. The plaintiff-appellant, George W. Florom (Flo-rom), filed an action based on theories of strict liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranties against the defendant-appellee, Elliott Equipment Co. (New Elliott) as the successor to Elliott Manufacturing Co. (Old Elliott), which manufactured and sold the crane to Florom’s…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Commissioner v. Estate of BoschSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- West v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Lehman Brothers v. ScheinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Meredith v. Winter HavenSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Phico Insurance Company v. Providers Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1989
- Sacramento Mansion, Ltd. v. Sacramento Savings & Loan Ass'n (In Re Sacramento Mansion, Ltd.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · 1990
- Johnston v. Amsted Industries, Inc.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1992
- George W. Florom v. Elliott Manufacturing, a Nebraska Corporation, and Elliott Equipment Corporation, a Nebraska CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1989
- Florom v. Elliott ManufacturingCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1989