![]() The assembly-line method adopted at Louisville was simply a speedier, less expensive, more efficient, and more effective means of refurbishing the gun mounts than if they had been disassembled and renovated gun mount by individual gun mount, and then returned to the same ship-and the end-result was precisely the same. We do not think that these factors call for a different conclusion than in Wilbur-Ellis. The trial judge thought here primarily because of "the complete disassembly at NOS Louisville and the failure to maintain gun mount integrity between components, the substitution of the next available components from stock or overhaul for all original components removed from the gun mount regardless of whether or not the removed components were individually spent and the failure to return the gun mount to its original vessel,". ![]() Mehler, Mehler, Frantz, Conlon, Knapp, Phelan & Varnum, Washington, D.C., argued for amicus curiae Automotive Parts Rebuilders Assn.īefore MARKEY, Chief Judge, BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and SMITH, Circuit Judge.ĭana Corporation (Dana) appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Holderman, J.) granting summary judgment to American Precision Company, Inc. Birch, Banner, Birch, McKie & Beckett, Washington, D.C., and Paul T. Muskal, Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., argued for defendants/appellees. Leonardi, Dana Corp., Toledo, Ohio, of counsel.īarry Grossman, Banner, Birch, McKie & Beckett, Washington, D.C., and James B. ![]() Briggs, Howrey & Simon, Washington, D.C., argued for plaintiff/appellant.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |