Legal Opinion

Florom v. Elliott Manufacturing

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided February 6, 1989No. 86-1656PublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Commissioner v. Estate of BoschSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. West v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
  4. Lehman Brothers v. ScheinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Meredith v. Winter HavenSupreme Court of the United States · 1943

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Phico Insurance Company v. Providers Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1989
  2. Sacramento Mansion, Ltd. v. Sacramento Savings & Loan Ass'n (In Re Sacramento Mansion, Ltd.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · 1990
  3. Johnston v. Amsted Industries, Inc.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1992
  4. George W. Florom v. Elliott Manufacturing, a Nebraska Corporation, and Elliott Equipment Corporation, a Nebraska CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1989
  5. Florom v. Elliott ManufacturingCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API