Legal Opinion
School District No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided September 24, 1993No. Nos. 91-36275, 92-35127, 92-35549, 92-35552 to 92-35555PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge:
These consolidated appeals arise from complaints filed by School District 1J, Mult-nomah County, Oregon (the “School District”). The School District sought to recover the cost of removing asbestos-containing products from over 100 school buildings. The defendants are installers and manufacturers of asbestos products. In a series of rulings in these cases, the district court granted summary judgment and partial summary judgment in favor of two installers and six manufacturers. It ordered final judgments entered as to those matters pursuant to Federal Rule of…
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
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Hal Roach Studios, Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Richard Feiner and Company, Inc., a New York CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLCDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2016
- Sanchez Ex Rel. Hoebel v. JohnsonDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2004
- Talent Mobile Dev., Inc. v. Headios Grp.District Court, C.D. California · 2019
- United States v. Southern California Edison Co.District Court, E.D. California · 2006
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.