TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lincoln Lynch v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., Raymark Industries, Inc.

Lincoln LYNCH, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORP., Et Al., Defendants, Raymark Industries, Inc., Et Al., Defendants-Petitioners

Lincoln Lynch v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 701 F.2d 42 (6th Cir. 1983)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 22, 1983
Docket
Nos. 82-8413, 82-8418, 82-8426 to 82-8432 and 82-8435
Judges
Lively, Martin, Kru-Pansky
Citations
701 F.2d 421983 U.S. App. LEXIS 30295

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

These matters are before the court upon consideration of petitions for permission to appeal and briefs in opposition thereto.

The petitioners are defendants in product liabilities cases where damages are sought against various manufacturers, processors and users of asbestos materials. Two of the defendants in these actions, Johns-Manville Sales Corp. and Unarco Industries, Inc., filed Chapter 11 proceedings in bankruptcy courts. Pursuant to § 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code all proceedings against the two filing defendants were automatically stayed. The petitioners, as co-defendants of Johns-Manville and Unarco, then filed motions in the district court to stay the pending actions until the Chapter 11 proceedings of Johns-Manville and Unarco are complete.

The district court filed an opinion and order denying the motion for a stay and certifying its order for immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b). The petitioners filed applications for permission to appeal to this court as required by § 1292(b), and the matter has been assigned to a panel of the court. Upon consideration we conclude that the purposes of § 1292(b) will be served by granting an immediate appeal.

Accordingly, the application for permission to appeal is granted, and the appeal is expedited. The clerk of the court will establish a briefing schedule and set these appeals for oral argument in due course.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1983: 41984: 219832026peak 1983 · 4

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list