Asbestos Cases A–Z: C

317 decisions whose name begins with C.

• Carroll v. Akebono Brake Corporation (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2022). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order striking Marjorie Carroll's complaint against Nissan as a discovery sanction and remanded, and affirmed the $1,000 fee sanction against attorney Owens, rejecting Nissan's cross-appeal.
• Carroll v. AO Smith Water Prods. (New York Supreme Court, 2010). The trial court denied Neles-Jamesbury's motion for summary judgment, so the Carrolls' claims against it continued.
• Carroll v. AO Smith Water Prods., Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2010). The court denied the motion for summary judgment by Electrolux Home Products (as successor to Tappan and Copes-Vulcan) and Spirax Sarco, so the plaintiffs' claims against them continue.
• Carroll v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, 2008). The district court denied the Carrolls' motion to remand, holding that defendants Viad, General Electric and Buffalo Pumps properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute.
• Carroll v. John Crane, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, 2017). Ahead of the July 17, 2017 trial, the court granted some and denied some of the parties' evidentiary motions and reserved others, so neither Patricia Carroll nor John Crane Inc. clearly won.
• Carroll v. John Crane, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, 2017). Ahead of trial, the court denied plaintiffs' motions to exclude John Crane's experts Crapo, Roggli, Beasley, Henshaw and McCloskey, granted many unopposed motions from both sides, and reserved ruling on others, including bankruptcy-trust claims, settlements, and "every exposure" language.
• Carroll v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2000). Answering a question certified by the Sixth Circuit, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that Geraldine Carroll's lung cancer claim was not time-barred, which favors the plaintiff over the asbestos defendants (Owens-Corning and others).
• Carson v. 3M Company (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2018). The court granted ExxonMobil's motion for summary judgment, holding the Carsons' common-law suit was barred by the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusivity provision, and also dismissed Dorothy Carson's derivative loss of consortium claim.
• Carter v. Henry Carlson's Construction Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, 2017). On screening, the magistrate judge found the negligence allegations enough to infer a duty and breach by each defendant, but ordered Carter to file an amended complaint because he alleged no symptoms, diagnosis or injury.
• Carter v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, 1983). The court dismissed plaintiff's strict liability failure-to-warn claim against Johns-Manville because of the stipulated unforeseeability of the danger, but held the design defect claim survived, and stayed further proceedings under the defendant's Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
• Carter v. Temple-Inland Forest Products (Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District, 1997). The court of appeals reversed summary judgment for Temple-Inland on the negligence (fear of cancer) claims of Carter and Wilson and remanded for trial, but affirmed summary judgment for Temple-Inland on the gross negligence claim.
• Caruolo v. John Crane, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 2000). The Second Circuit affirmed the jury verdict for Paul and Margaret Caruolo against John Crane, Inc. and the denial of a new trial. It vacated the prejudgment interest award and remanded for recalculation under Rhode Island law, which favored the Caruolos on their cross-appeal.
• Caruso v. M & O Insulation Co. (Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District, 2003). The appellate court reversed the directed verdict for M & O Insulation Company at the close of plaintiffs' case and remanded, leaving any Rule 219 sanction question to the trial court; Caruso won and M & O lost.
• Cary v. 3M Company (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2013). The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motions to compel: the defendants must produce their photos and video from the June 23, 2011 Hoechst site inspection, but need not produce their photocopies of Hoechst documents.
• Cary v. American Optical Corporation (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2013). The court deferred ruling on Watts's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, denying it without prejudice and granting plaintiff Gloria Cary limited jurisdictional discovery into Watts's Rhode Island contacts.
• Case v. Clark Indus. Insulation (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2018). The appeals court affirmed the trial court's dismissal without prejudice of the claims against John Crane, Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction, ruling that John Crane had not waived the defense, so Darlene Case lost.
• Case v. Fibreboard Corp. (Oklahoma Supreme Court, 1987). Answering a question certified by the Tenth Circuit, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that Oklahoma would not recognize market share or other collective liability in asbestos injury cases where the plaintiff cannot identify the specific tortfeasors, favoring the defendant manufacturers over Mr. and Mrs. Case.
• Casey v. Alcoa Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2020). The district court granted Alcoa's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Clinton Casey's asbestos claims against Alcoa with prejudice because the Washington Industrial Insurance Act barred them.
• Casey v. Dynalectric Company (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2015). The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for Dynalectric Company and remanded, holding that the plaintiffs (Casey's wife and daughters) raised a triable issue on whether Dynalectric breached a duty of care.
• Casey v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2016). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for John and Patricia Casey against Kaiser Gypsum, rejecting Kaiser Gypsum's appeal and the Caseys' cross-appeal over the reduction of punitive damages to just under $4 million.
• Casey v. Perini Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for general contractor Perini Corporation against plaintiffs Patricia and John Casey, holding the trial court properly excluded plaintiffs' expert declaration and that plaintiffs offered only speculation about exposure.
• Cashio v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, 2015). The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and transferred the case to the Western District of Louisiana, rejecting the defendants' request for reconsideration.
• Cashio v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, 2015). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion and transferred the case from the Middle District of Tennessee to the Western District of Louisiana at Shreveport under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), over the defendants' pending personal-jurisdiction motions.
• Cashman v. Pacific Scientific Company (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2010). The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Pacific Scientific Company, finding material fact issues on Robert Cashman's exposure to asbestos in Pacific's equipment, and upheld the trial court's refusal to dismiss the case for spoliation, so Darlyne Cashman's estate prevailed on both points.
• Cashman v. Pacific Scientific Company (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2009). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Pacific Scientific Company, rejecting the estate's claims because it did not show Cashman was exposed to asbestos in Pacific's original products; it did not reach Pacific's spoliation cross-appeal.
• Casper v. LE Isley & Sons, Inc. (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2007). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Worker's Compensation Board's dismissal of the Estate's claim against employer L.E. Isley & Sons, so the Estate lost and Isley won.
• Castor v. US (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, 1995). The court dismissed the federal prisoners' Federal Tort Claims Act asbestos-exposure suits against the United States for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the discretionary function exception, and denied their motions for appointed counsel and to strike a declaration.
• Castorina v. Lykes Bros. SS Co., Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, 1984). After a bench trial, the court found for defendant Lykes Bros. Steamship Co. and against longshoreman Castorina, holding the claim timely but finding no negligence under § 905(b) and no unseaworthiness.
• Castro v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, 2021). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Johnson & Johnson defendants because the Castros' claims over John's mesothelioma were time-barred under Virginia's two-year limitations period, and the derivative loss of consortium claim fell with them.
• Castro v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, 2021). A magistrate judge recommended granting Revlon Holdings' motion for summary judgment, finding the Castros' claims time-barred under Virginia's two-year limitations period and Joyce's consortium claim not viable under Virginia law.
• Castro v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, 2020). The court adopted the magistrate judge's unopposed recommendation and denied CVS Pharmacy's motions to dismiss or transfer and for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the Castros' cross-motion to amend, all as moot after the Castros stipulated to dismiss CVS without prejudice.
• Castro v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, 2020). The magistrate judge recommended denying as moot all three pending motions (CVS Pharmacy's two motions to dismiss or transfer and the Castros' cross-motion for leave to amend) because the Castros had dismissed CVS without prejudice, leaving the scheduling order in place.
• Castro v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, 2020). The magistrate judge recommended denying John and Joyce Castro's motion to remand to state court, so Johnson & Johnson's snap removal stands.
• Castro v. Johnson & Johnson (U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, 2021). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's unopposed recommendation and granted summary judgment to the Johnson & Johnson defendants, ruling against John and Joyce Castro, whose claims were time-barred.
• Catiller v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2013). The Court of Appeal granted plaintiffs' writ petition, directing the trial court to vacate summary judgment for Schneider Electric USA and to give plaintiffs time to oppose using the deposition of SEI's most knowledgeable person.
• Caudle-Hyatt, Inc. v. Mixon (Virginia Supreme Court, 1979). The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the Industrial Commission's award of death benefits to Lucille Mixon (and her stepchild), rejecting the employer Caudle-Hyatt and its insurer Aetna's challenges on dependency and injurious exposure.
• CBS Corporation v. Ulbricht (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2020). The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court's finding that the $4.5 million covenant judgment for the Ulbricht family against PM Northwest was reasonable, rejecting the appeal by insurer USF&G.
• Celotex Corp. v. Copeland (Florida Supreme Court, 1985). The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Third District's approval of market share liability (reinstating dismissal of that theory but allowing Copeland to amend his complaint), and approved the Third District's ruling that the statute of limitations could not be decided by summary judgment, so the Copelands may proceed against the asbestos manufacturers.
• Celotex Corp. v. Meehan (Florida Supreme Court, 1988). The Florida Supreme Court quashed all three Third District decisions: it held Meehan's New York-barred claim was revived by a new New York statute and could proceed, remanded Nance for a significant-relationships determination, and let Colon's Florida-based claim proceed.
• Celotex Corp. v. Tate (Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District, 1990). The court of appeals affirmed the judgment for Tate's heirs against Celotex (as successor to Philip Carey) and George Rowley, Inc., including actual and punitive damages, rejecting all eleven of Celotex's points of error.
• Cepeda v. AC&S, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2007). The trial court denied Ford's and General Motors' motion to exclude the CCAR S/P2 training materials, granted their motion to exclude other CCAR web site material and the videotape, and granted plaintiff Cepeda's cross-motion to admit Ford's own training materials and the Rocker deposition.
• Cera v. AW Chesterton Company (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2012). The Superior Court granted Providence College's motion for summary judgment, holding that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy for Marco Cera's alleged asbestos injury, and transferred the case to the Workers' Compensation Commission, so the Cera plaintiffs lost their tort suit against the college.
• Certainteed Corporation v. Dexter (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2010). The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that the trial court did not err in granting CertainTeed and Garlock a new trial, and it remanded for the Court of Appeals to decide the cross-appeal from the second trial.
• Certainteed Corporation v. Fletcher (Georgia Supreme Court, 2016). The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals in part (reinstating Fletcher's design-defect claim against CertainTeed) and reversed in part (holding CertainTeed owed no duty to warn her, so summary judgment for CertainTeed on failure to warn was proper).
• Chaisson v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2006). The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the jury judgment for the Chaisson family against H.B. Zachry Company, including its 42.58% fault share and the wrongful death and survival awards, and rejected both Zachry's appeal and the family's cross-appeal for higher survival damages.
• Chapin v. A & L Parts, Inc. (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2007). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling admitting plaintiffs' expert Dr. Lemen's causation testimony, so DaimlerChrysler, Ford, General Motors and Honeywell lost their challenge to the Chapins' expert evidence (one judge dissented).
• Chapp v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 1st District, 2019). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Colgate-Palmolive, dismissing Dale Chapp's claims, because his evidence that his wife used asbestos-contaminated Cashmere Bouquet talc showed only a possibility.
• Charlevoix v. Caterpillar, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2017). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted summary judgment to John Crane Inc. and Fiat Allis North America, because the unopposed motions showed no evidence that Mr. Charlevoix was exposed to asbestos from their products.
• Charlop v. AO Smith Water Prods. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2009). The First Department held that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff Charlop's motion to vacate a stipulation, in an appeal by defendant Kohler Co., and ordered dismissal of the action as to Kohler.
• Chatfield v. Brenntag North America, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, 2023). The district court granted Plaintiff Chatfield's motion to remand to Multnomah County Circuit Court, ruling that in-forum defendant Chang was properly served and not fraudulently joined, so removal by the J&J and Brenntag defendants failed.