Asbestos Cases A–Z: B

351 decisions whose name begins with B.

• Bondurant v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2019). The court denied Terry Bondurant's motion to remand, holding that General Electric and CBS Corporation (Westinghouse) properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute.
• Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc. (Louisiana Supreme Court, 2003). The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal's affirmance of the awards against Conoco for increased risk of asbestos-related cancer, mental anguish and punitive damages, but affirmed the property-damage award for the plaintiffs.
• Booker v. Imerys Talc America, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's postjudgment order that largely denied Imerys's motion to tax costs, so the Booker plaintiffs kept their costs for claims against other defendants.
• Booker v. Imerys Talc America, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for the Booker plaintiffs against Imerys Talc America, rejecting Imerys's challenges to the exposure evidence, the special verdict form and the finding that it had assumed Cyprus's pre-1992 liabilities.
• Bootenhoff v. Hormel Foods Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Oklahoma, 2014). The court granted summary judgment to Meadwestvaco Corporation and MW Custom Papers, LLC and against plaintiffs Bootenhoff, holding the Mead defendants owed no duty of care to Norma Bootenhoff; it denied the motion to strike as moot.
• Bootenhoff v. Hormel Foods Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Oklahoma, 2014). The court granted Cleaver-Brooks' motion for summary judgment on the products liability and negligence claims, ruling for Cleaver-Brooks and against the Bootenhoffs, and denied its motion to strike as moot.
• Bootenhoff v. Hormel Foods Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Oklahoma, 2014). The court granted International Paper Company's motion for summary judgment, holding it owed no duty of care to Norma Bootenhoff, so the Bootenhoffs' negligence and punitive damages claims failed; IPC's motion to strike was denied as moot.
• Bootenhoff v. Hormel Foods Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Oklahoma, 2012). The court granted Hormel Foods Corporation's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing Hormel from the case; the Bootenhoffs' claims against the other defendants continued.
• Booth v. Acands (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2003). The appeals court granted 3M's writ in part, reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment, and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against 3M for lack of proof that Joe Booth was exposed to 3M's asbestos tape; the protective order request was moot.
• Bordelon v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, 2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting plaintiff Mary Bordelon's motions to amend her complaint to add a non-diverse defendant and to remand to state court, rejecting removing defendant Expro's claims of federal jurisdiction.
• Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1973). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict and judgment for Borel's widow against six asbestos insulation manufacturers, including Fibreboard, Johns-Manville, Pittsburgh Corning, Philip Carey, Armstrong Cork and Ruberoid, and denied rehearing.
• Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores (Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District, 2004). The court of appeals overruled all nine of Borg-Warner's issues and affirmed the trial court's judgment for Arturo Flores, including the $103,200 compensatory award and $50,000 punitive award.
• Borg-Warner Corporation v. Flores (Texas Supreme Court, 2007). The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment, which had affirmed Arturo Flores's jury verdict, and rendered judgment for Borg-Warner because the causation evidence was legally insufficient.
• Borman v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1992). The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's refusal to charge the jury on apportionment and its denial of Celotex's motion on lost wages, leaving the verdict for Mrs. Borman and her husband's estate against Celotex in place.
• Bostic v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, 2018). The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand to state court because Rite Aid of South Carolina was not fraudulently joined, so complete diversity was lacking; the request for attorneys' fees was denied as moot and the removing defendants' amended notice was struck.
• Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. (Texas Supreme Court, 2014). The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' take-nothing judgment for Georgia-Pacific, holding that the plaintiffs' causation evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury verdict.
• Botts v. US (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2016). The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the United States and remanded for further proceedings, siding with Roger and Carol Botts.
• Botts v. US (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2013). The district court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment, ending Roger and Carol Botts' Federal Tort Claims Act suit over Mr. Botts' mesothelioma, because they could not show his Shipyard deliveries were a substantial factor in causing it.
• Bouchard v. CBS Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2012). The court granted Saint Gobain Containers' motion for summary judgment, holding SGC did not assume liability for Lola Bouchard's asbestos exposure under the asset purchase agreement, so plaintiffs lost against SGC.
• Bouck v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, 2021). The court denied Kansas City Southern Railway's partial motion for summary judgment, holding that the Locomotive Inspection Act does not bar the plaintiff Bouck's FELA claims against the railroad for asbestos exposure from locomotives and parts.
• Boudreaux v. Able Supply Co. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, 2009). The appeals court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, on forum non conveniens grounds, of the Boudreaux family's suit against the defendant companies, so the plaintiffs lost their Vermilion Parish forum and could re-file elsewhere.
• Boudreaux v. Able Supply Co. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, 2009). The court of appeal granted American Cyanamid's motion to lift the stay of the appeal as to all defendants except bankrupt Lyondell Chemical Company and Millennium Petrochemicals, so the plaintiffs' appeal of the forum non conveniens dismissal could proceed against the others.
• Boudreaux v. Bollinger Shipyard (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2016). The appeals court affirmed the trial court's exclusion of the plaintiffs' pathologist and its summary judgment dismissing the Boudreaux family's claims against Trinity Industries and its insurers, so Trinity and the insurers won and the family lost.
• Bougere v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, 2012). The appeals court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the family's wrongful death claims against the insurers of Avondale's executive officers, because the officers were immune under La. R.S. 23:1032.
• Bourgeois v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The district court denied plaintiff Bourgeois's motion to remand, holding that Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) and Bossier timely and properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute.
• Bourke v. Exxon Mobil Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2016). The federal district court granted Julius Bourke's motion to remand his asbestos suit to Louisiana state court. It found Eagle was improperly joined and dismissed it, but held Exxon had not shown that Taylor-Seidenbach was improperly joined, so complete diversity was lacking. It denied Bourke's request for attorneys' fees and costs.
• Bourque v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, 2009). The court of appeal affirmed summary judgment for Lake Charles Stevedores, holding that Eddie Bourque Jr. and his wife could not pursue state-law claims against it because the LHWCA was their exclusive remedy.
• Boutte v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court denied McDermott's Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement, holding that Huntington Ingalls (Avondale)'s cross-claim against McDermott met Rule 8 pleading standards.
• Bouvier v. Krenz (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1983). The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Avondale Shipyards because Bouvier, a shore-based rigger, was not a Jones Act seaman, so his widow's Jones Act claim failed.
• Bowers v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (Georgia Court of Appeals, 2023). The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's exclusion of the plaintiff's causation expert and its grant of summary judgment to CSX Transportation, so the estate of Luther Bowers lost.
• Bowers v. Fibreboard Corporation (Washington Court of Appeals, 2nd Division, 1992). The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdicts for the plaintiffs (the Eldredge and Williams estates and Mrs. Eldredge) against Fibreboard and Owens-Illinois, finding no error in the jury instruction or the evidence rulings; Celotex's issues were left pending its bankruptcy stay.
• Boyd v. Boeing Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2015). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand (and their alternative request to sever and remand the other claims), so Boeing and United Technologies kept the case in federal court under the federal officer removal statute.
• Boyd v. Boeing Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2016). The court denied Lockheed Martin's and General Dynamics' motions to reconsider the order allowing plaintiffs to add them as defendants after the amendment deadline, and denied their motion to strike them from the amended complaint.
• Boyd v. Super. CT. OF Alameda County (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2014). The Court of Appeal granted Gerald and Judith Boyd's writ petition and directed the superior court to vacate its denial of trial preference and set trial within 120 days of October 31, 2014, over opposition from three defendants.
• Boyd v. Warren Pumps, LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2016). Affirmed summary judgment for Warren Pumps and Air & Liquid Systems (successor to Buffalo Pumps) on the USS Gainard replacement-parts claim, but reversed and remanded on the USS McCain claim about spare packing and gaskets supplied with the original pumps, so Boyd partly won and partly lost.
• Boyer v. Weyerhaeuser Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, 2016). The federal district court denied the plaintiffs' motions to reconsider its summary judgment rulings for Weyerhaeuser and denied their alternative requests to amend their complaints, so Weyerhaeuser won.
• Boyer v. Weyerhaeuser Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, 2016). The court granted Weyerhaeuser summary judgment and struck plaintiffs' experts as to Masephol, Prust, Seehafer, Heckel and Treutel, denied them as to Boyer, Pecher and Sydow on public nuisance, and granted summary judgment to Weyerhaeuser on all private nuisance claims.
• Boyer v. Weyerhaeuser Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, 2014). The court granted Weyerhaeuser's motion to dismiss with prejudice under Wisconsin's workers' compensation exclusivity provision, and granted Owens-Illinois's motion to dismiss the licensor-based claims, with 30 days for plaintiffs to amend the strict liability claim.
• Boyett v. Keene Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, 1993). After a jury verdict of $226,466.09 for Rosemary Boyett against Keene Corporation, the court refused to reduce it by the plaintiff's settlements with the shipowners and other manufacturers, and it denied States Marine Lines' (Isco's) claim for indemnification from Keene.
• Boyle v. Certainteed Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2006). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for CertainTeed, holding San Francisco's General Order No. 157 invalid, and remanded; plaintiffs recovered costs.
• Boynton v. Kennecott Utah Copper, LLC (Utah Supreme Court, 2021). The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the denial of summary judgment to Kennecott, reversed summary judgment for PacifiCorp and Conoco, and remanded, so Larry Boynton's claims against all three go forward.
• Bozeman v. Union Carbide Corporation (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 2011). The court of appeal reversed the trial court's judgment sustaining the City of Shreveport's exception of no cause of action as to the Bozemans' non-intentional tort claim and remanded, so the children (plaintiffs) prevailed over the City.
• Bozeman v. Wyeth Holdings Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2016). The court granted Bozeman's motion to remand to Orleans Parish state court, finding that Cyanamid (Wyeth Holdings) failed to prove that the non-diverse defendant Taylor-Seidenbach was improperly joined.
• Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings (Washington Supreme Court, 2008). The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's summary judgment orders in favor of pump and valve manufacturers Buffalo Pumps, IMO, Crane and Yarway, against the Braaten estate.
• Bradberry v. Carrier Corporation ET AL. (Alabama Supreme Court, 2011). The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgments for Carrier Corporation and the other solvent defendants, rejecting the plaintiffs' argument that codefendant Leslie Controls' bankruptcy stayed the whole case.
• Bradley v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2007). The court granted plaintiff Frank Bradley's motion to remand and sent the case back to Orleans Parish Civil District Court, holding that Northrop Grumman (as alleged successor to Avondale) and Peter Territo failed to justify federal officer removal; their motion for a 1292(b) statement was denied.
• Bradley v. Richland County Landfill, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, 2014). The court granted plaintiff Bradley's motion to remand and sent the case back to South Carolina state court, rejecting the Landfill and the other defendants' federal officer removal.
• Bradshaw v. Johnson & Johnson (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, 2019). The federal district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that J&J failed to show the suit was related to Imerys's bankruptcy, so the case went back to Harris County state court.
• Brandecker v. E&b Mill Supply Co. (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 2018). The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of plaintiffs' Rule 4:50-1 motion, vacated the final judgment dismissing the case, and remanded, ruling for the Brandecker plaintiffs against The Scotts Company.
• Brandes v. Brand Insulations, Inc. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2018). Affirmed dismissal of the estate's wrongful death action against Brand Insulations, which had lost the prior survivorship trial, but reversed dismissal as to CBS and Parsons and remanded for reinstatement of those claims.