On May 09, 2013 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Johnson, Carl,
Johnson, Sandra,
and
Cmc Steel Fabricators Inc,
Commercial Metals Company,
Dayton Superior Corporation,
Symons Manufacturing,
for OTHER PRODUCT LIABILITY
in the District Court of Dallas County.
Preview
CAUSE NO. DC-13-05222
CARL and SANDRA JOHNSON § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiffs, §
§
VS. §
§
SYMONS MANUFACTURING, a § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
division of DAYTON SUPERIOR §
CORP.;
CMC STEEL FABRICATORS, INC. §
D/B/A CMC CONSTRUCTION §
SERVICES; and COMMERCIAL §
METALS COMPANY §
Defendants § 68th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT DAYTON SUPERIOR CORPORATION’S
NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CAME ON THIS DAY to be heard Defendant, Dayton Superior Corporation’s No-
Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting evidence and the arguments of counsel,
the Court is of the opinion that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be DENIED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this ______ day of ________________________, 2015.
____________________________________
PRESIDING JUDGE
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT DAYTON SUPERIOR CORPORATION’S NO-EVIDENCE MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 1
Document Filed Date
September 29, 2015
Case Filing Date
May 09, 2013
Category
OTHER PRODUCT LIABILITY
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
CAUSE NO. DC-13-05222 CARL and SANDRA JOHNSON § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiffs, § § VS. § § SYMONS MANUFACTURING, a § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS division of DAYTON SUPERIOR § CORP.; CMC STEEL FABRICATORS, INC. § D/B/A CMC CONSTRUCTION § SERVICES; and COMMERCIAL § METALS COMPANY § Defendants § 68th JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT DAYTON SUPERIOR CORPORATION’S NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CAME ON THIS DAY to be heard Defendant, Dayton Superior Corporation’s No- Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting evidence and the arguments of counsel, the Court is of the opinion that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be DENIED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this ______ day of ________________________, 2015. ____________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT DAYTON SUPERIOR CORPORATION’S NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 1