Cases

211 F.Supp.2d 1067 (2002) In re AMSTED INDUSTRIES, INC., "ERISA" LITIGATION. Juan ARMSTRONG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMSTED INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. MDL No. 1417. No. 01 C 2963. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. July 12, 2002. *1068 Mark D. DeBofsky, Nathan Q. Rugg, Daley, DeBofsky &am;

162 F.Supp.2d 697 (2001) In re AMSTED INDUSTRIES INC. "ERISA" LITIGATION No. 1417. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. August 21, 2001. *698 Before Wm. Terrell HODGES, Chairman, John F. KEENAN, Morey L. SEAR, Bruce M. SELYA,[*] Julia Smith GIBBONS, D. Lowell JENSEN and J. Frederick MOTZ, Judges of the Panel.

J. PHIL GILBERT, DISTRICT JUDGE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on a variety of motions in this suit under Title I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. The plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC” or

658 N.E.2d 1208 (1995) 276 Ill.App.3d 483 213 Ill.Dec. 187 David E. HARDING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMSTED INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees (Thrall Car Manufacturing Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee). No. 1-93-2346. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division. Novemb

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT, DISTRICT JUDGE This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC” or “Commission”) motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the EEOC has attempted to conciliate this dispute with defendant Amsted Rail Co., Inc. (“Amsted”) as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12117

830 P.2d 1141 (1992) Christopher M. JOHNSTON and Janice Johnston, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMSTED INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and South Bend Lathe, Inc., an Indiana corporation, Defendants-Appellees. No. 91CA0230. Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. V. April 9, 1992. *1142 Kathleen McWhirter Emmett, James F. Frost, Den

WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J. (dissenting). The majority opinion very thoroughly sets forth the competing policy considerations implicit in the issue presented. I *319submit that those considerations are reasons to spell out clearly what constitutes a “product line,” but not to preclude recovery against a successor corporation for i

171 N.J. Super. 261 (1979) 408 A.2d 818 EFRAIN RAMIREZ AND LAURA RAMIREZ, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. AMSTED INDUSTRIES, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Argued September 11, 1979. Decided November 15, 1979. *263 Before Judges CRANE, MILMED and KING.

65 Ill. App.3d 545 (1978) 382 N.E.2d 393 AMSTED INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. POLLAK INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. — (FRED R. POLLAK, Defendant-Appellant.) No. 77-639. Illinois Appellate Court — First District (3rd Division). Opinion filed October 4, 1978. *546 Barclay, Damisch &

ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge. This appeal concerns the meaning of an indemnity provision in a contract for the sale of a business. By an agreement effective June 30, 1975 (the “Agreement”), Am-sted Industries, Inc. (“Amsted”) sold its Johnson toolmaking division to LWE, Inc., which we refer to by its current name, South Bend Lathe, Inc. (“South Bend”). As part of the sale, the

COFFEY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Henry Pratt Company and Amsted Industries on the grounds that the plaintiffs’ products liability actions are barred pursuant to Section 5 of the Indiana Product Liability Act, Indiana Code § 33-1-1.5-5. We affirm. I Jones & Laughlin Steel Company (“J & L”) operates a s

Justice BURNETT: Because I believe the mechanical application of the factors recited in Brown v. American Ry. Express Co., 128 S.C. 428, 123 S.E. 97 (1924) without considering the facts which may support a finding of a consolidation, merger or continuation of the predecessor entity result in an injustice to the consumer, I respectfully dissent, in part. *3

232 F.Supp.2d 969 (2002) Catherine Ann GURLEY, Plaintiff, v. AMERIWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. No. 4:01 CV 355 DDN. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. September 12, 2002. *970 T. Patrick Deaton, Jr., Newburger and Vossmeyer, St. Louis, MO, for plaintiff. James N. Foster, Jr., Gregory A. Sho

794 A.2d 1191 (2001) CIRRUS HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED, a Cayman Island Company, Plaintiff, v. CIRRUS INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and Aeroglobal Capital Management, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants. C.A. No. 18978. Court of Chancery of Delaware, New Castle County. Submitted: July 17, 2001. Decided: July 19, 2001.

288 N.J. Super. 479 (1996) 672 A.2d 1177 SAMUEL P. ALLOWAY, III, AND NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. GENERAL MARINE INDUSTRIES, L.P., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND MULLICA RIVER BOAT BASIN, DEFENDANT. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Submitted January 24, 1996. Decided March 8, 1996.

ALITO, Circuit Judge. Berg Chilling Systems (“Berg”) appeals a judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In the earlier proceedings, Berg sought a judgment rendering SP Industries (“SPI”) liable for breach of contract, most recently based on the theory that SPI assumed liability when it purchased the assets of an entire division of the Hull Corporation (“Hull”), the original

The opinion of the Court was delivered by POLLOCK, J. The primary issue is whether New Hampshire Insurance Co. (“New Hampshire”) and its insured, Samuel P. Alloway III (“Alloway”) (jointly described as “plaintiffs”) may recover from General *623Marine Industries, Inc. (“GMI”) in negligence and strict liability for economic loss caused by a defect i

759 F.Supp. 236 (1991) Terrence Wayne LaFOUNTAIN v. WEBB INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, and Lloyd H. Knost, Individually, and Lloyd H. Knost, t/a Reed Engineering Company, and Ted Reed, Individually and t/a Reed Engineering Co. Civ. A. No. 89-6069. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. March 5, 1991. *237 John A. Beranbaum, G

591 A.2d 194 (1991) Morton LEVINE, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. Roger B. SMITH, James F. McDonald, Howard H. Kehrl, F. Alan Smith, Donald J. Atwood, Lloyd E. Reuss, Robert C. Stempel, Thomas A. Murphy, Anne L. Armstrong, Catherine B. Cleary, James H. Evans, Walter A. Fallon, Charles T. Fisher, Marvin L. Goldberger, John J. Horan, Edmund T. Pratt, Jr., James D. Robinson, III, John G. Smale, Leon H. Sullivan, Dennis Weatherstone, Thomas H. Wyman,

429 S.E.2d 643 (1993) 189 W.Va. 237 Dennis Dwight SMITH, in his capacity as Administrator, DBN of the Estate of John Q. Hutchinson, deceased, Plaintiff Below, v. MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. DICO COMPANY, INC., a corporation, The Greater Iowa Corporation, a corporation, ASP-Dico, Inc., a corporation, New Dico Company, Inc., a corporation, Dyneer Corporation, a