1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 879 F.2d
  5. 879 F.2d 801 (1989)
 

FLOROM v. ELLIOTT MFG.

No. 86-1656.

879 F.2d 801 (1989)

George W. FLOROM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELLIOTT MANUFACTURING, a Nebraska Corporation, and Elliott Equipment Corporation, a Nebraska Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

July 12, 1989.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

James A. Cederberg, Bragg & Dubofsky, P.C., Denver, Colo. (John W. Hornbeck, Bragg & Dubofsky, P.C., Denver, Colo. was also on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.

John M. Lebsack, White and Steele, P.C., Denver, Colo. (John M. Palmeri, White and Steele, P.C., Denver, Colo., was also on the brief), for defendants-appellees.

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, MOORE, Circuit Judge, and RUSSELL, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

OPINION ON REHEARING

Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing of defendant-appellee Elliott Equipment Corporation (New Elliott) requesting that the court withdraw and revise its opinion with regard to the duty to warn issue, a response we ordered, and a reply thereto, the petition is denied.1

New Elliott argues that the duty to warn theory is based solely on negligence principles and does not arise...

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