Legal Opinion
Gibson v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
District Court, D. Colorado
Decided December 8, 1986No. Civ. A. 83-K-1756, 84-K-421, 84-K-840, 84-K-912, 84-K-942, 84-K-1075, 84-K-1245, 84-K-1354, 84-K-2066, 85-K-2429 and 85-K-2431 to 85-K-2433PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KANE, District Judge.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs in these consolidated actions seek recompense for injuries suffered as a result of exposure to defendants’ asbestos products. Defendant Nicolet, Inc. now moves for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. 1
All plaintiffs “claim that they were exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured by Keasbey & Mattison Company. Defendant, Nicolet, Inc., has been sued as the successor in interest to Keasbey & Mattison Company, as noted in plaintiffs’ complaints.” Plaintiffs’ Brief at 1.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Jerome Otteson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1980
- Ramirez v. Amsted Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1981
- Dawejko v. Jorgensen Steel Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Wood Bros. Homes, Inc. v. Walker Adjustment BureauSupreme Court of Colorado · 1979
- Kloberdanz v. Joy Manufacturing CompanyDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1968
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Schmidt v. Boardman Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
- LaPollo Ex Rel. LaPollo v. General Electric Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1987
- Ede v. Mueller Pump Co.District Court, D. Colorado · 1987
- Florom v. Elliott ManufacturingCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1989
- Ward v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 1988
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.