Legal Opinion
Frank Borowicz v. Chicago Mastic Company, Frank Borowicz v. Chicago Adhesive Products Company
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided September 20, 1966No. 15407-15408_1PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GRANT, District Judge.
Plaintiff brought these diversity actions to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him from a flash fire that occurred while using a can of adhesive cement. The defendant, Chicago Mastic Company (Mastic), manufactured this “No. 2020 contact cement” and sold it in 55-gallon drums to defendant, Chicago Adhesive Products Company. Chicago Adhesive, which was itself in the business of manufacturing and selling adhesive cement, repackaged, sold and distributed the product in one-gallon cans and affixed its own label, indicating that it, Chicago Adhesive, was the…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Huset v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1903
- Sagorsky v. MalyonNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
- Marguerite Jamieson v. Woodward & LothropCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1957
- White v. . Lehigh Valley R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Nancy C. Lindsay and Bruce H. Lindsay v. Ortho Pharmaceutical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
- Burch v. Amsterdam CorporationDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1976
- Thelma Billiar v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Defendant/third Party Plaintiff v. Mennen-Greatbatch Electronics, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
- East Penn Manufacturing Co. v. PinedaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- Sprague, Thall & Albert v. Woerner (In Re Woerner)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1986
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.