LINCOLN LYNCH, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORP., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS

6th Cir. | 1983-02-22
Nos. 82-8413, 82-8418, 82-8426 to 82-8432 and 82-8435
Before LIVELY, MARTIN and KRU-PANSKY, Circuit Judges.
701 F.2d 42 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (1983) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court granted permission to appeal and expedited the appeals.


Facts & Procedural History

Defendants in product liability cases sought a stay of proceedings due to co-defendants filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The district court denied th…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
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.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw