Legal Opinion
Herriott v. Allied-Signal, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided July 22, 1992No. 91 C 1377PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KOCORAS, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b). Jurisdiction is based on diversity. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For the reasons set forth below, we grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
BACKGROUND
On January 31, 1991, plaintiff, Sarah Herriott (“Herriott”), brought a six count complaint individually and as Special Ad-ministratrix of the estate of Brutus Her-riott. This suit arises out of the death of her husband, Brutus Herriott, while he was working “around and upon” a piece…
2Cases cited22 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
- Commissioner v. Estate of BoschSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- DeValk Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987
- Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 13,316 Robert Witham and Patricia Witham v. Whiting Corporation and Wt/hrc CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Adcock v. Montgomery Elevator Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1995
- Herriott v. Allied Signal, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. W.R. Grace & Co.District Court, C.D. Illinois · 1993
- Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund v. Peabody Coal Co.District Court, C.D. Illinois · 2005
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.