SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1J, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ACandS, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, et al.; E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington corporation; A.P. Green Refractories Company, Defendants-Appellees.
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1J, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ACandS, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, et al., Defendants, 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., Defendants-Appellees.
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1J, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ACandS, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation; Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, et al., Defendants, and
Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation individually and as successor in interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, Defendant-Appellee.
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1J, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ACandS, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation; Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, et al., Defendants, and
US Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1J, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ACandS, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation; Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, et al., Defendants, and
Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1J, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ACandS, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation; Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, et al., Defendants, and
Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1J, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ACandS, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation; Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, et al., Defendants, and
Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued and Submitted July 12, 1993.
Decided September 24, 1993.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Kevin N. Keaney, Pozzi, Wilson, Atchison, O'Leary & Conboy, Portland, OR, for plaintiff-appellant.
Ronald Scott Bemis, Stafford, Frey, Cooper and Stewart, Seattle, WA, and Christopher A. Rycewicz, Stafford, Frey, Cooper & Stewart, Portland, OR, for defendant-appellee Fibreboard.
Joseph C. Arellano and Garr M. King, Kennedy, King & Zimmer, Portland, OR, for defendant-appellee Keene.
Stuart D. Jones and I. Franklin Hunsaker, Bullivant, Houser, Bailey, Pendergrass & Hoffman, Portland, OR, for defendant-appellee Flintkote.
Katherine Steele, Madden, Poliak, MacDougall & Williamson, and John Dudrey, Williams, Fredrickson, Stark & Weisensee, Seattle, WA, for defendant-appellee Bartells.
Duane A. Bosworth, Davis Wright Tremaine, Portland, OR, for defendants-appellees Armstrong Cork Co., Inc. and Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
Laurie D. Kohli, George, Hull, Porter & Kohli, P.S., Seattle, WA, and Janice M. Stewart, McEwen, Gisvold, Rankin & Stewart, Portland, OR, for defendant-appellee ACandS.
Rex Armstrong and Richard A. Hayden, Bogle & Gates, Portland, OR, and Thomas M. Kittredge, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, PA, for defendant-appellee U.S. Gypsum.
William M. Tomlinson and James L. Dumas, Lindsay, Hart, Neil & Weigler, Portland, OR, for defendant-appellee Owens-Corning.
Before: FARRIS, FERGUSON and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge:
These consolidated appeals arise from complaints filed by School District 1J, Multnomah 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...
Let's get started
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.
