1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 21 F.3d
  5. 21 F.3d 835 (1994)
 

RYNDERS v. E.I. DU PONT, DE NEMOURS & CO.

No. 93-1643.

21 F.3d 835 (1994)

Marilyn RYNDERS, Appellant, v. E.I. DU PONT, DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, a Delaware corporation. Appellee. James W. BUHLER, Appellant, v. E.I. DU PONT, DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, a Delaware corporation. Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Decided April 15, 1994.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Barry G. Reed, Minneapolis, MN, argued (Ronald S. Goldser, Minneapolis, MN, Jeffrey Viken, Rapid City, SD, David Strait, Watertown, SD, on the brief), for appellant.

Edward M. Mansfield of Phoenix, AZ, argued (Ross F. Schmucki, Barry Fish, and Michale O. Miller, Phoenix William Porter and Patricia Meyers, Rapid City, SD, on the brief), for appellee.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, BEAM, Circuit Judge, and JACKSON, District Judge.

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

Marilyn Rynders and James Buhler brought this diversity products liability action against E.I. Du Pont, De Nemours & Company (DuPont), the manufacturer of certain polymers commonly known by their trade name, Teflon. Vitek, Inc. (Vitek), a now bankrupt medical supplies manufacturer, used Teflon to construct the cartilage replacement implants that injured both Rynders and Buhler. After a hearing, the district court1

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