1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 789 F.2d
  5. 789 F.2d 846 (1986)
 

BRISTOL v. FIBREBOARD CORP.

No. 85-1974.

789 F.2d 846 (1986)

Gene Kendel BRISTOL; and Fern Bristol, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FIBREBOARD CORPORATION; Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation; Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.; Pittsburgh-Corning Corporation; Celotex Corporation; GAF Corporation; Standard Asbestos Manufacturing and Insulation Company; Nicolet Industries, Inc.; Keene Corporation; Combustion Engineering, Inc.; Forty-Eight Insulation, Inc.; Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Raymark Industries, Inc.; Flintkote Company; Rock Wool Manufacturing Company; H.B. Fuller Company; H.K. Porter Company; National Gypsum Co., Defendants-Appellees, Johns-Manville Sales Corporation; Ryder Industries; Unarco Industries, Inc., Defendants.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 2, 1986.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mark H. Iola of Ungerman, Conner & Little, Tulsa, Okl., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Murray E. Abowitz and Mort G. Welch of Abowitz & Welch, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendants-appellees Fibreboard Corp., Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., Pittsburgh-Corning Corp., Celotex Corp., Keene Corp., Owens-Illinois, Inc., Flintkote Co., Rock Wool Mfg. Co., H.K. Porter Co., and Nat. Gypsum Co.

R. Casey Cooper and Linda Chindberg Hubble of Boesche, McDermott & Eskridge, Tulsa, Okl., for defendant-appellee GAF Corp.

Georgiana T. Hammett, Tom L. King and Jeff R. Beeler of King, Roberts & Beeler, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant-appellee Standard Asbestos Mfg. and Insulation Co.

Mike Barkley and Michele Ticknor Gehres of Barkley, Ernst, White, Hartman & Rodolf, Tulsa, Okl., for defendant-appellee H.B. Fuller Co.

Before SEYMOUR and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and KANE, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

In accordance with 10th Cir.R. 9(e) and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a), this appeal came on for consideration on the briefs and record on appeal.

This is an appeal from an order and judgment, both entered on June 19, 1985. The order sustained a motion for summary judgment joined in by eighteen of the twenty-one defendants who were named in the complaint. Judgment was entered in favor of the same eighteen defendants. Of the remaining three defendants named...

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