Myrtle Nell Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Louis H. Catrett, Deceased v. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, et al.

263 U.S. App. D.C. 399 (D.C. Cir. 1987) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · August 7, 1987 · No. No. 83-1694

Summary

The D.C. Circuit considered, on remand from the Supreme Court, whether summary judgment was properly granted to Celotex in an asbestos-exposure wrongful-death action. The court held that the record, including an employer letter, interrogatory responses, sales records, and corporate succession evidence, created a genuine issue of material fact regarding the decedent's exposure to Firebar and Celotex's responsibility for the product. The court reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

  1. The cumulative record created a genuine issue of material fact regarding Louis Catrett's exposure to Firebar while working for Anning-Johnson and the connection between Firebar and Celotex; therefore, Celotex was not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
  2. The court could consider the Hoff letter at the summary-judgment stage because Celotex did not timely object to its consideration or admissibility before the District Court, and the letter was before that court when it ruled.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence before the District Court created a genuine issue of material fact concerning Louis Catrett's exposure to Firebar and, through the corporate chain linking Carey-Canadian Asbestos and Panacon Corporation to Celotex, to a Celotex product.
  2. Whether summary judgment was proper when the nonmoving party's showing included an allegedly inadmissible letter, an interrogatory response identifying a potential witness, sales records, and corporate-liability evidence.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (7)

  • Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986)(followed)
  • Catrett v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 756 F.2d 181 (D.C. Cir. 1985)(distinguished)
  • Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986)(followed)
  • Laningham v. United States Navy, 813 F.2d 1236, 1241 (D.C. Cir. 1987)(followed)
  • United States v. General Motors Corp., 518 F.2d 420, 441-42 (D.C. Cir. 1975)(followed)
  • Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 111-15, 63 S. Ct. 477, 479-81, 87 L. Ed. 645 (1943)(distinguished)
  • Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193, 97 S. Ct. 990, 993, 51 L. Ed. 2d 260 (1977)(distinguished)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…