Legal Opinion

Hall v. Armstrong Cork, Inc.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 1984No. 50757-1PublishedCited by 54 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*259The following opinion was prepared by Justice Hugh J. Rosellini prior to his death. It is adopted by the undersigned Justices as the opinion of the court.

Appellants present a products liability claim raising a question of corporate successor liability. We reject the application of the product line rule of successor liability to the facts of this case and affirm the trial court's order of summary judgment.

This case is one of several hundred filed in King County Superior Court against these defendants for damages arising out of exposure to asbestos-containing products. Many issues pertaining to…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Ray v. Alad Corp.California Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Martin v. Abbott LaboratoriesWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Seattle-First National Bank v. TabertWashington Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Meisel v. M & N Modern Hydraulic Press Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1982

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by54 opinions

  1. Fish v. Amsted Industries, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1985
  2. George v. Parke-DavisWashington Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Kaminski v. Western MacArthur Co.California Court of Appeal · 1985
  4. Lefever v. K.P. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1999
  5. Parker v. Western Dakota Insurors, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2000

49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API