Legal Opinion
Lapointe v. 3m Company
Superior Court of Rhode Island
Decided March 25, 2008No. C.A. No. PC 06-2418Published
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION
The Defendant, Homasote Company ("Homasote"), moves for summary judgment pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. 56. Homasote asserts that no issue of material fact exists, and such motion should be granted. The Plaintiff, Joseph LaPointe ("Mr. LaPointe"), objects to the motion.
Facts and Travel
Mr. LaPointe filed a complaint in this Court on May 6, 2006, alleging, inter alia, that he had suffered injuries as a result of occupational and household exposure to asbestos products. In addition to job-related exposure to asbestos-containing boilers or pressure vessels, Mr. LaPointe claims that he was…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- George F. Noonan and Ann Marie Noonan v. The Winston CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1998
- Bourg v. Bristol Boat Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1998
- Palmisciano v. Burrillville Racing Ass'nSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1992
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.