Legal Opinion
Mills v. Curioni, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided December 19, 2002No. 2:01-cv-71540PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ROSEN, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
This product liability action is presently .before the Court on five motions for summary judgment filed by four of the Defendants, i.e., two motions filed by Officine Curioni, S.p.A., and one each filed by General Corrugated Machinery Co., Inc., Acme Corrugated Box Co., Inc., and Hampton Industrial Services, Inc. 1 Plaintiff has responded to all of these motions. 2
Having reviewed and considered the Defendants’ briefs and supporting documents, and having heard the oral arguments of counsel…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Hanna v. PlumerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,768 Phil A. Street and Clyde H. Street v. J.C. Bradford & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Curry v. MEIJER, INC.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2009
- Avendt v. Covidien Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2017
- Coleman v. Maxwell Shoe Co., Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2007
- Tillman v. GeorgiaDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 2006
- Konstantinov v. Findlay Ford Lincoln MercuryDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2008
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.