KELLUM v. NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA KELLUM v. NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA Email | 477 U.S. 317 - CELOTEX CORP. v. CATRETT, Supreme Court of United States. 547 U.S. 356 - SEREBOFF v. MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., Supreme Court of United States.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett | Documents Collection Center 2020-4-4 · Before Roe v. Wade (ebook) Database of Federal Statute Names; Follow the Money (ebook) Global Constitutionalism Seminar; Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum; Lincoln's Code; Litchfield Law School Sources; Pronouncing Dictionary of the Supreme Court of the United States; Representing Justice; War Manifestos Database One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Summary Judgment … 2018-4-18 · Catrett v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 756 F.2d 181 (D.C. Cir. 1985); "Celotex III" will indi-cate the Supreme Court opinion, reported at Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); and "Celotex IV'" will indicate the second court of appeals decision, on remand from the Supreme Court, reported at Catrett v. Celotex Corporation v. Catrett - Case Brief PETITIONER: Celotex Corporation RESPONDENT: Catrett LOCATION: Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare DOCKET NO.: 85-198 DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1981-1986) LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit CITATION: 477 US 317 (1986) ARGUED: Apr 01, 1986 DECIDED: Jun 25, 1986 ADVOCATES: Leland S. Van Koten - on behalf of Petitioner Paul … Celotex Corp. v. Catrett Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc
2020-4-22 · "Celotex Corporation v. Catrett." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1985/85-198. Accessed 19 Jul. 2020.
Dec 22, 2019 · Celotex Corp. v. Catrett . One of the most pernicious environmental toxins of the 20 th century was asbestos. Used in the insulation of countess buildings, asbestos provided fireproof barriers, but came at a high cost to human health. Once asbestos dust was in the air, the crystals hooked into the lungs of the workers who breathed it in. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett 477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986) Mr. Catrett died, possibly due to exposure to asbestos. Catrett's wife sued Celotex (and 14 other asbestos manufacturers) for negligence, breach of warrantee, and strict liability. significant summary judgment decision to date, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett' According to Steinman, Celotex has been misinterpreted, resulting in the imposition of a strict standard with respect to the admissibility of factual materials presented by parties (particularly plaintiffs) responding to motions for summary judgment.! Catrett with Adickes v. Kress and the Evidentiary Problems Under Rule 56, 6 REV. LMG. 227,228 (1987) (calling Celotex the "most important for procedural purposes"); Melissa L. Nelken, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Summary Judgment After Celotex, 40 HASTINGS L.J. 53, 54 (1988) (calling Celotex "the broadest of the three cases"). 9.
celotex corp. v. catrett In September 1980, respondent administratrix filed this wrongful-death action in Federal District Court, alleging that her husband's death in 1979 resulted from his exposure to asbestos products manufactured or distributed by the defendants, who included petitioner corporation.
A summary and case brief of Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), including the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, key terms, and concurrences and dissents.