Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the military contractor defense did not shield the defendants from liability as the products were not specialized items of military equipment but instead goods sold on the ordinary commercial market
• holding district court correctly ruled that Navy’s failure to warn did not absolve defendants of liability for plaintiff’s asbestos-related injuries because defendants failed to adduce any evidence suggesting the Navy’s actions were extraordinary or unforeseeable
• affirming a district court’s holding that a defendant was not entitled to a government contractor defense where it produced no evidence that the government required or prohibited asbestos warnings
• plaintiff’s estate submitted evidence that he had swept up the dust resulting from the stripping of asbestos insulation from the pipes of at least four major naval ships
• “It is well-settled that the existence of complete diversity is assessed at the time of the filing of a complaint and that subsequent changes in the citizenship of an existing party do not affect the determination of jurisdiction.”
• specifications must require more than “just a certain level of performance”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).