Cases

2022 WI 109 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2020AP1124 COMPLETE TITLE: Matthew W. Murphy, Plaintiff-Appellant, Wisconsin Power and Light Company, Involuntary-Plaintiff, v. Columbus McKinnon Corporation, Defen

2021 WI App 61 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2020AP1124 †Petition for Review filed. Complete Title of Case: MATTHEW W. MURPHY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, WISCONSIN POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, INV

VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge I. BACKGROUND *127Plaintiff Columbus McKinnon Corporation ("Columbus McKinnon" or "Plaintiff") brought this action against defendants The Travelers Indemnity Company ("Travelers") and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company ("Liberty Mutual," and together with Trave

VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Columbus McKinnon Corporation ("Columbus McKinnon" or "Plaintiff") brought this action against defendants The Travelers Indemnity Company ("Travelers") and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company ("Liberty Mutual," and together with Travelers, "Defendants"), alleging that insurance policies issued to Columbus McKinnon by Travel

DECISION AND ORDER VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge. Plaintiff Columbus McKinnon Corporation (“CMCO”) commenced this action against defendants The Travelers Indemnity Company (“Travelers”) and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”), alleging that insurance policies issued to CMCO by Travelers and Liberty Mutual obligate them to defend and indemnify CMCO with respect to thousands of l

OPINION OF THE COURT Fahey, J. The primary issue before us on this appeal is whether Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion for an order applying the substantive law of New York in this personal injury action. We conclude that the court should have determined that the substantive law of Indiana applies to this action, and we thus conclude that the order should be reversed and that defendant’s mot

*********** The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Gillen, and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The parties have not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, or rehear the parties or their representatives. Having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of Deputy Com

832 F.Supp. 597 (1993) Jan LIBRONT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COLUMBUS McKINNON CORP., Defendant. No. 83-CV-858S. United States District Court, W.D. New York. March 12, 1993. *598 *599 *600 *601

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

867 F.Supp. 1173 (1994) COLUMBUS McKINNON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. CHINA SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD., Defendant. CHINA SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Raymond NEWMAN d/b/a Micro Designs, Third-Party Defendant. No. 88-CV-0211E (F). United States District Court, W.D. New York. November 22, 1994. *1174 W

792 F.Supp. 786 (1992) COLUMBUS-McKINNON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. OCEAN PRODUCTS RESEARCH, INCORPORATED, Defendant. No. 92-325-Civ-T-17C. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. June 8, 1992. *787 Bradley J. Goewert, Gunn, Ogden & Sullivan, P.A., Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff. Richard M. Sebek, Fowle

CLARK, Chief Judge: The plaintiffs in this action entered into a settlement agreement with defendant Gear-ench, Inc. (Gearench). A prior decision of this court established that Gearench is entitled to indemnification from third-party defendant Columbus-MeKinnon, Inc. (Columbus-McKinnon). See Molett v. Penrod Drilling Co., 826 F.2d 1419, 1429 (5th Cir. 1987)

120 B.R. 301 (1990) In re THOMSON McKINNON SECURITIES, INC. and Thomson McKinnon, Inc., Debtors. Bankruptcy Nos. 90 B 10914, 90 B 11805. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York. October 16, 1990. *302 Debevoise & Plimpton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, New York City, for debtors. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,

OPINION AND ORDER WOLSKI, Judge. Plaintiff Terry C. Brunner seeks damages arising from an alleged breach of an oral contract with the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), to compensate him for assistance he rendered against drug traffickers. Defendant has moved for summary judgment, arguing that none of the DEA agents involved had the authority to bind the government in a contr

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 101 This action is brought by the estate of Wayne Albert Lytle, through its administrator, Carla Lytle, who appeals a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas sustaining defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. Carla Lytle brought this action on behalf of the estate and in her personal capa

467 F.2d 483 Delmar MAYFIELD, Individually, and on behalf of LibertyMutual Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.CHISHOLM-MOORE HOIST DIVISION and Columbus McKinnonCorporation, Defendants-Appellants. No. 72-2503 Summary Calendar.* United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Nov. 3, 1972.Rehearing

872 F.2d 1221 Bess Caroline MOLETT, Individually and on Behalf of herminor son, John Dreisch Molett, IV, et al., Plaintiffs,v.PENROD DRILLING CO., et al., Defendants.GEARENCH, INC., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee,v.COLUMBUS-McKINNON, INC., Third Party Defendant-Appellant. No. 88-4136. United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. May 19,

940 F.2d 77 33 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 680, Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P 12,864Diana L. MOSSER, Administratrix of the Estate of David W.Mosser, Jr., deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.FRUEHAUF CORPORATION, a/k/a Fruehauf Division; FruehaufCorporation, Defendants-Appellees,andC.M. American, Division of Columbus McKinnon Corporation, aforeign corporation; National Steel Corporation, a DelawareCorporation; American Chain and Ca

826 F.2d 1419 1988 A.M.C. 2112, Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P 11,575 Bess Caroline MOLETT, Individually and on Behalf of her son,John Dreisch, Plaintiffs,v.PENROD DRILLING CO., Defendant-Appellee.GEARENCH, INC., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant,v.COLUMBUS-McKINNON, INC., Third Party Defendant-Appellant. No. 86-4665. United States Court o

MAGILL, Circuit Judge. Pneumo Abex Corporation appeals from a final judgment entered by the district court 1 upon a jury verdict in favor of Aerotronics, Inc. For reversal, Pneumo argues that the district court: (1) violated the parol evidence rule; (2) erred in its instructions to the jury; (3) improperly applied Misso