Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ronald Birmingham v. Mettler-Toledo, Inc., 96-1426 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 96-1426 Visitors: 7
Filed: Nov. 27, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: _ No. 96-1426SI _ Ronald Birmingham; Bonnie * Birmingham; Herbert Betz; Linda * Betz, * * Plaintiffs-Appellants,* * v. * * Mettler-Toledo, Inc., doing * business as Toledo Scale * Company, also known as Mettler * Instrument Corp., also known as * CIBA Geigy, also known as * Appeal from the United States CIBA-Geigy SA France, also * District Court for the Southern known as CIBA-Geigy AG Swiss, * District of Iowa. also known as Reliance Electric * Engineering Co., also known as * [UNPUBLISHED] Rel
More
_____________ No. 96-1426SI _____________ Ronald Birmingham; Bonnie * Birmingham; Herbert Betz; Linda * Betz, * * Plaintiffs-Appellants,* * v. * * Mettler-Toledo, Inc., doing * business as Toledo Scale * Company, also known as Mettler * Instrument Corp., also known as * CIBA Geigy, also known as * Appeal from the United States CIBA-Geigy SA France, also * District Court for the Southern known as CIBA-Geigy AG Swiss, * District of Iowa. also known as Reliance Electric * Engineering Co., also known as * [UNPUBLISHED] Reliance Electric Company; * Farrel Co., a division of USM * Corporation; CIBA-Geigy * Corporation, * * Defendants-Appellees, * ____________________ * * Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., * * Intervenor Below -- * Appellant. * _____________ Submitted: November 19, 1996 Filed: November 27, 1996 _____________ Before FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and MAGNUSON,* District Judge. _____________ PER CURIAM. *The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. The Birmingham, Betz, and Bridgestone/Firestone appellants appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment in this diversity-based products liability action. After de novo review, we conclude that no error of law appears, and we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons stated in its order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny the pending motion for dismissal from the appeal and the related request for sanctions as moot. Affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer