Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Schultz v. Bell & Howell Co.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided February 2, 1981No. Civ. A. 80-670 CAPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TEITELBAUM, District Judge.

Celesta Schultz and Joseph W. Schultz brought this action against the manufacturer of a dry developer copying machine, Scott Graphics, Inc.; the manufacturer of a component part, U.S. Datacorp; and the manufacturer of a microfiche processor, Bell & Howell Co.; to recover damages. Celesta Schultz alleges she sustained personal injuries as a result of exposure to ammonia while operating copy machines in the scope and course of her employment. 1 The action was removed from state court with federal jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship and…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Tsarnas v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  3. Hefferin v. StempkowskiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  4. Bell v. Koppers Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  5. Arnold v. BorbonusSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Farrall v. Armstrong Cork Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1983
  2. Ryden v. Johns-Manville ProductsDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
  3. Leonard v. Harris Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Leonard v. Harris Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API