Hinds v. Compair Kellogg, a Div. of Robertshaw Controls Co.

961 F.2d 211, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 19021, 1992 WL 90562
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 30, 1992
Docket91-2737
StatusUnpublished

This text of 961 F.2d 211 (Hinds v. Compair Kellogg, a Div. of Robertshaw Controls Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hinds v. Compair Kellogg, a Div. of Robertshaw Controls Co., 961 F.2d 211, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 19021, 1992 WL 90562 (4th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

961 F.2d 211

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Rebekah HINDS, Individually, and as Personal Representative
of the Estate of Gregory W. Hinds, Deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COMPAIR KELLOGG, a Division of Robertshaw Controls Company,
Defendant-Appellee.

No. 91-2737.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Argued: April 8, 1992
Decided: April 30, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, District Judge. (CA-91-166-3)

Argued: Harry Allan Wilson, Jr., WILSON, KEHOE & WININGHAM, Indianapolis, Indiana, for appellant.

Matthew James Calvert, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

On Brief: John E. Lichtenstein, BREMNER, BABER & JANUS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.

James E. Farnham, Edward J. Fuhr, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WILKINSON, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Rebekah Hinds appeals the district court's entry of summary judgment for defendant CompAir Kellogg in Hinds' product liability action. We have considered the arguments of the parties, and affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons stated by that court in its thorough opinion. See Hinds v. CompAir Kellogg, 776 F. Supp. 1102 (E.D. Va. 1991).

AFFIRMED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hinds v. CompAir Kellogg
776 F. Supp. 1102 (E.D. Virginia, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
961 F.2d 211, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 19021, 1992 WL 90562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinds-v-compair-kellogg-a-div-of-robertshaw-controls-co-ca4-1992.