Legal Opinion
Richards v. Raymark Industries, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided April 27, 1987No. Civ. A. 85-4038PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
NEWCOMER, District Judge.
I have before me in this asbestos case a motion by defendant John Crane-Houdaille (“Crane”) for summary judgment against plaintiffs and all cross-claimants. Crane bases its motion on the failure of any party to show that F. Lloyd Richard (“Plaintiff”) was exposed to Crane’s asbestos-containing products. 1 Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion; however, the Asbestos Claims Facility (“ACF”) defendants do oppose the motion. For the reasons set forth below, Crane’s motion will be granted.
The relevant facts are quite simple. Plaintiff has filed this damage…
2Cases cited8 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
- Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & MacHine CompanySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1979
- Benjamin H. Blackston, Wilmer L. Ring, John N. Turner, James N. Tanksley and Foster G. Hickox v. Shook and Fletcher Insulation Co., Ac & S, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1985
- Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Robertson v. Allied Signal, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- Lilley v. Johns-Manville Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Taylor v. Celotex Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Ottavio v. Fibreboard Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Barlow v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1991
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.