Legal Opinion
Bogart v. Phase II Pasta MacHines, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 11, 1993No. Civ. A. 91-6183PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DITTER, District Judge.
In September, 1990, Curt Bogart’s arm was severed by a pasta-making machine in the course of his employment. Bogart sued the manufacturers and distributors of the machine. One of the defendants, Phase II Pasta Machines, Inc., the alleged successor to the company which sold the machine to Bogart’s employer in 1985, has moved for summary judgment on the ground that 1) it is not the successor corporation to the original seller-corporation, and 2) even if it is, none of the exceptions to the successor non-liability rule applies.
I disagree with both of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Ramirez v. Amsted Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1981
- Philadelphia Electric Company v. Hercules, Inc. And Gould, Inc. Appeal of Hercules, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- Dawejko v. Jorgensen Steel Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Polius v. Clark Equipment Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986
- Hill v. Trailmobile, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Brennan v. National Telephone Directory Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
- Warne Investments, Ltd. v. HigginsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
- Ross Controls, Inc. v. United States Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue ServiceDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994