1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 708 F.Supp.
  5. 708 F.Supp. 705 (1989)
 

WRIGHT BY WRIGHT v. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO.

Civ. A. Nos. 88-329, 88-330.

708 F.Supp. 705 (1989)

Adrena WRIGHT, Alena Wright, and Alvina Wright, minors by their parent and natural guardian, Alethea WRIGHT, and Alethea Wright, in her own right, Plaintiffs, v. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, NL Industries, Inc., Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., Atlantic Richfield Company, successor to International Smelting and Refining Company, SCM Corporation, successor to Glidden Company, and Lead Industries Association, Defendants. Curtis L. THOMAS and Jewel Thomas, minors, by their parent and natural guardian, Joyce L. THOMAS, and Joyce L. Thomas, in her own right, Plaintiffs, v. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, NL Industries, Inc., Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., Atlantic Richfield Company successor to International Smelting and Refining Company, SCM Corporation, successor to Glidden Company, and Lead Industries Association, Defendants.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

March 20, 1989.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Thomas J. Cordaro, Pittsburgh, Pa., Robert C. Eddins, Upper St. Clair, Pa., for plaintiff.

John C. Unkovic, Reed Smith Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., John Walker, Kirkland Ellis, Washington, D.C., for defendant, NL Industries.

Carl A. Eck, Meyer Darragh, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant Sherwin Williams.

James R. Miller, Dickie, McCamey, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant Eagle-Picher Industries.

Frederick N. Egler, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant Atlantic-Richfield.

Mary Morrissey Sullivan, Rosales Rosales & Sullivan, Boston, Mass., for defendant Lead Industries.

Stanley V. Ostrow, Finkel, Lefkowitz, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant SCM Corp.

OPINION

GERALD J. WEBER, District Judge.

Defendant Lead Industries Association filed a motion to dismiss asserting lack of in personam jurisdiction. Plaintiffs responded with a brief and supporting evidentiary material. Because we conclude that the proof submitted by plaintiffs satisfies both the Pa. Long Arm Statute, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5322 and due process considerations, defendant's motion will be denied.

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases