IN RE DOW CORNING CORP.

Nos. 95-2034, 95-2082, 95-2084, 95-2106, and 95-2107.

86 F.3d 482 (1996)

In re DOW CORNING CORPORATION, Debtor. Heidi LINDSEY, et al.; Official Committee of Tort Claimants, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. O'BRIEN, TANSKI, TANZER AND YOUNG HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS OF CONNECTICUT, et al., Defendants, Dow Corning Corporation; The Dow Chemical Company (95-2034/2107); Corning Inc. (95-2107); Baxter Healthcare Corporation; Baxter International Inc. (95-2082); Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. (95-2084); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.; Medical Engineering Corporation (95-2106), Defendants-Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Decided April 9, 1996.

Opinion Reissued as Amended; Rehearing and Rehearing Denied June 3, 1996.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Marvin E. Frankel (argued & briefed), Kenneth H. Eckstein, Jeffrey S. Trachtman, Kramer, Levin, Naftalis, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel, New York City, Dennis Meir, Alfred S. Lurey, Kilpatrick & Cody, Atlanta, GA, Lenard M. Parkins, Patrick L. Hughes, Verner, Liipfert, Bernard, McPherson & Hand, Houston, TX, Thomas D. Lambros, Bricker & Eckler, Columbus, OH (of Counsel), for Official Committee of Tort Claims.

Sheldon S. Toll, Sheryl L. Toby, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn, Detroit, MI, Lynn E. Busath, Ogden N. Lewis (briefed), Davis, Polk & Wardwell, New York City, for Intervenor Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors' of Dow Corning Corporation in Support of Appeals.

Dennis S. Meir, Kilpatrick & Cody, Atlanta, GA, for Heidi Lindsey.

Patricia Howard, Washington, DC, for MDL Panel.

Lenard M. Parkins, Verner, Liipfert, Bernard, McPherson & Hand, Houston, TX, for John M. O'Quinn.

Daniel W. McDonald (briefed), McDonald, Clay & Crow, LLP, Fort Worth, TX, Frank Cain, Bowers & Cain, Fort Worth, TX, Ben C. Martin, Ben C. Martin, Dallas, TX, J. Mark Howell, J. Kevin Clark, Clark & Howell, Fort Worth, TX, Michael P. McGartland, Chappell & McGartland, LLP, Fort Worth, TX, Stephen C. Stapleton (briefed), Russell L. Munsch, Munsch Hardt Kopf Harr & Dinan, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Appellees Johnson County, Texas Plaintiffs.

John M. O'Quinn (argued & briefed), Richard N. Laminack, Thomas W. Pirtle, O'Quinn, Kerensky, McAninch & Laminack, Houston, TX, for Appellees Breast Implant Tort Claimants represented by John O'Quinn.

Martha K. Wivell (briefed), Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, Costa Mesa, CA, for amicus curiae California Plaintiffs' Steering Committee.

James C. Schroeder, Theresa A. Canaday, Herbert L. Zarov (briefed), Mayer, Brown & Platt, Chicago, IL, for The Dow Chemical Co. and Corning Corp.

William D. Eggers (briefed), Nixon Hargrave Devans & Doyle, LLP Rochester, NY, for Corning, Inc.

Leslie Berg, Trustee, Office of the United States Trustee, Detroit, MI, pro se.

Marion J. Mack, Trustee, Office of the United States Trustee, Detroit, MI, for Dow Corning Corp. in Nos. 95-2082, 95-2106.

Larry J. Nyhan, James F. Conlan, Sidley & Austin, Chicago, IL, Judy A. O'Neill, Laura J. Eisele, Dykema & Gossett, Detroit, MI, Thomas E. Pitts, Jr. (argued & briefed), Sidley & Austin, New York City, for Baxter Healthcare Corp. and Baxter Int'l Inc.

James F. Conlan, Sidley & Austin, Chicago, IL, for Baxter Intern. Inc.

Barbara J. Houser (argued), George H. Tarpley, Sheinfeld, Maley & Kay, Dallas, TX, for Dow Corning Corp.

Greg A. Danilow, Bruce R. Zirinsky (argued & briefed), Martin J. Bienenstock, Howard B. Comet, Arvin Maskin, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, New York City, Susan Healy Zitterman (briefed), Richard A. Kitch, John Paul Hessburg, Kitch, Drutchas, Wagner & Kenney, Detroit, MI, for Minnesota Min. and Mfg. Co.

Robert W. Powell (briefed), Dickinson, Wright, Moon, Van Dusen & Freeman, Detroit, MI, Hayden Smith, Jr. (briefed), David J. Adler, McCarter & English, Newark, NJ, Thomas E. Pitts, Jr. (argued), Sidley & Austin, New York City, for Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Medical Engineering Corp.

Before: MARTIN and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; WISEMAN, District Judge.


Opinion Reissued as Amended; Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 3, 1996.

ORDER

June 3, 1996

The court having received two petitions for rehearing en banc, and the petitions having been circulated not only to the original panel members but also to all other active judges of this court, and no judge of this court having requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc, the petitions for rehearing

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