Asbestos Cases A–Z: C

317 decisions whose name begins with C.

• Chavers v. Gatke Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2003). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Gatke Corporation after a jury verdict, holding the trial court correctly refused the plaintiffs' civil conspiracy and concert of action jury instructions.
• Chavers v. General Motors Corp. (Arkansas Supreme Court, 2002). The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for General Motors, AlliedSignal and Ford, rejecting the claims of Deidra Chavers over her husband's mesothelioma death.
• Chenet v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2023). The appeals court dismissed Colgate-Palmolive's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the trial court improperly certified the partial summary judgment on asbestos causation as final, and remanded the case to the trial court.
• Chenet v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2024). The Louisiana Fourth Circuit granted Colgate-Palmolive's writ application and reversed the trial court's order granting the Chenets a new trial after a defense jury verdict, so the verdict for Colgate stands.
• Chenot v. AP Green Services, Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2006). The Superior Court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Beazer East (successor to Koppers) and remanded for further proceedings, siding with plaintiff Joanne Chenot.
• Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. v. Williams (Virginia Court of Appeals, 1990). The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the Industrial Commission's award to claimant Williams, rejecting Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company's argument that the weekly wage should be based on his lower later earnings at Frederick County Electric.
• Chesher v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, 2018). The district court granted Crane Co.'s renewed motion for summary judgment, ruling against plaintiffs James and Cheryl Chesher because they lacked evidence that Crane's products were a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma.
• Chesher v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, 2017). The court denied Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so the Chesher plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claims against Crane go forward; Crane may renew its substantial-factor argument after the Daubert ruling.
• Chesterton v. Fisher (Florida District Court of Appeal, 3rd District, 1995). The appeals court reversed the judgment for the plaintiffs (the Fisher estate and survivor) against A.W. Chesterton and The Anchor Packing Company and remanded for a new trial, ruling for the defendants on the cross-examination issue.
• Chevron Oronite Company LLC v. Jacobs Field Services North America, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2018). The court granted Chevron Oronite partial summary judgment on indemnity from Jacobs under three of four contracts and on attorney's fees, but denied it as to Contract K-2251, ordinary-cost recovery beyond clerk's costs, and settlement reasonableness; Jacobs won on those points.
• Chevron Oronite Company v. Jacobs Field Services North America, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2019). After a bench trial on the papers, the court entered judgment for Chevron Oronite against Jacobs for the full $550,000 settlement of the Bourgeois asbestos suit, plus interest, attorney's fees and ordinary costs.
• Chevron Oronite Company, LLC v. Jacobs Field Services North America, Incorporated (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2020). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment for Chevron, requiring Jacobs to indemnify Chevron for the full $550,000 Bourgeois settlement plus about $256,000 in attorney's fees and costs.
• Chevron USA v. Workers'comp. Appeals BD. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 1990). The Court of Appeal affirmed the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's order denying Chevron's petition for reconsideration, so the widow and children of Harvey Steele won, and it denied their request for supplemental attorney fees.
• Chevron USA, Inc. v. Wcab (California Supreme Court, 1999). The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, which had annulled the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's death benefit award, and ordered the Board's award to widow Lucille Steele reinstated (except the statutory penalty), over Chevron's objection.
• Chicano v. General Electric Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2004). The court denied General Electric's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine fact issues on duty to warn, causation and the government contractor defense, and granted plaintiff's motion to substitute Linda Chicano as executrix and amend the complaint.
• Chilarski v. AW Chesterton Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2012). The court denied Goodyear's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross-claims, and also denied the plaintiffs' request for spoliation sanctions against Goodyear.
• Chism v. WR Grace & Co. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 1998). The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for W.R. Grace against the widow and children of Glenwood Chism, because they offered no evidence that Grace's Zonolite vermiculite contained asbestos that caused his mesothelioma.
• Christman v. Dravo Corp. (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1983). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for Dravo Corporation, holding that the widow's exclusive remedy against the employer was under the Longshoremen's Act because Dravo had secured compensation insurance.
• Church v. Dana Kepner Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 2013). The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part Dana Kepner's motion to compel and the Churches' motions to quash and for protective orders: the fact and dates of the California settlements and the smoking admission must be provided, but settlement terms and amounts need not be.
• Church v. Dana Kepner Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 2012). The court denied Dana Kepner Company's motion to dismiss, so Barbara Church's negligence, strict liability, conspiracy and wrongful death claims proceed.
• Cichirillo v. Avondale Industries (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2004). The appeals court reversed the trial court's ruling that Cichirillo's claim against Northrop Grumman (Avondale), Flintkote, Territo, Owens-Illinois, Uniroyal, Hopeman Brothers and Charles Johnson was prescribed, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
• Cichirillo v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (Louisiana Supreme Court, 2005). The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and reinstated the trial court's judgment granting the exception of prescription for Peter Territo and Avondale Industries (Northrop Grumman Ship Systems), dismissing Cichirillo's mesothelioma suit as time-barred.
• Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1998). The court reversed the judgments against Pittsburgh Corning in the 143 phase III sample cases and 5 extrapolation cases, affirmed the nine class-representative judgments except for the prejudgment interest start date, and reversed the judgments against Asbestos Corporation Limited, rendering judgment for it.
• Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, 1990). After a class trial of 2,298 asbestos plaintiffs, the court approved its sampling-based damages plan, set rules for prejudgment interest, the Johns-Manville settlement and punitive multipliers against Pittsburgh-Corning, Fibreboard and Celotex, and held ACL liable to only one plaintiff.
• Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, 1990). After a jury verdict for the plaintiff class, the court dismissed the compensatory claims against Carey Canada, kept the punitive damages finding against it, left the contributory negligence findings in place, and set the accrual date for prejudgment interest. It also held ACL liable for Fibreboard products from 1951 to 1961 but declined to assess punitive damages against it.
• Ciolino v. Keystone Shipping Co. (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 2024). The court denied Keystone's motion to strike Ciolino's late expert disclosure, denied Keystone's first summary judgment motion as moot, and denied its second summary judgment motion on all counts, so Ciolino's claims against Keystone go forward.
• Cioni v. Avon Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2022). The court denied Colgate-Palmolive's summary judgment motion on causation but granted it on punitive damages, dismissing the punitive damages claim against Colgate only.
• Cisler v. AO Smith Water Products Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The trial court granted Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims against it, while the case continued against the other defendants.
• Citrano v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2015). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the suit to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City after GE was dismissed, over CBS's opposition, and denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a surreply.
• Citrano v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2014). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court, or to sever and remand the claims against the non-removing defendants, so General Electric kept its federal forum.
• Citron v. AO Smith Water Prods. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court denied Trane U.S., Inc. (formerly American Standard) summary judgment, so the plaintiffs, the Citron family and estate, kept their claims against it.
• City of Dayton v. AR Environmental, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, 2012). The court entered default judgment for the City of Dayton against A.R. Environmental, awarding $453,094.53 in compensatory damages and $906,189.06 in punitive damages, and declaring A.R. liable for indemnity and CERCLA response costs.
• City of Jackson v. Sandifer (Mississippi Court of Appeals, 2013). The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's order upholding the Workers' Compensation Commission's award of permanent partial disability benefits to Sam Sandifer, rejecting the City of Jackson's limitations and causation arguments.
• City of Pasadena v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2017). The Court of Appeal granted the City of Pasadena's writ petition and directed the trial court to vacate its order overruling the City's demurrer and enter a new order sustaining it, defeating the Jaureguis' claim against the City.
• City of Phoenix v. First State Insurance Company (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2018). The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Hartford insurers against the City of Phoenix, holding Hartford owed the City neither indemnity nor defense costs for its $500,000 settlement of the Tarazon asbestos claims.
• City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. (Arizona Supreme Court, 2017). The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the City of Phoenix's contract-based indemnity claims against the eight Contractors as barred by the statute of repose, but reversed dismissal of its claims against the Developers and remanded.
• City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. (Arizona Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2016). The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the City of Phoenix's third-party indemnification complaint against developers and contractors as barred by the eight-year statute of repose, and affirmed attorneys' fee awards to the developers who sought them.
• City of Williamsport v. Workers'compensation Appeal Board (Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, 2016). The Commonwealth Court reversed the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board's order, which had upheld an award of fatal claim benefits to the widow, so the City of Williamsport won and the claimant lost.
• Clare v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2005). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Saberhagen Holdings and General Motors, holding that the estate's claims over Clifford Clare's mesothelioma death were time-barred, and the estate lost.
• Clark v. Aii Acquisition, LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 2018). The Second Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of the Clarks' asbestos personal injury suit on judicial estoppel grounds, ruling for Mrs. Clark against Boeing, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Clark v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) properly and timely removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute.
• Clark v. Workers'comp. Appeals BD. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 1991). The Court of Appeal affirmed the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision that Shirley Clark's application for death benefits was barred by the statute of limitations, so the employer (Department of Youth Authority) prevailed.
• Clay v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1983). The Sixth Circuit stayed the appeal as to bankrupt Johns-Manville, vacated the jury verdicts for Raybestos-Manhattan and remanded for retrial, so the Clay and Bailey plaintiffs won on appeal.
• Clayton Center Assoc. v. WR Grace & Co. (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, 2nd Division, 1993). The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's compensatory award for the building owners against W.R. Grace and leaving in place the JNOV that removed the punitive damages award.
• Clayton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted defendant Syd Carpenter's motion to extend the discovery and expert deadlines for limited discovery on William Clayton's cause of death, over plaintiff Jill Clayton's opposition.
• Clayton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2020). The court denied plaintiff Jill Clayton's motion to exclude defendant Syd Carpenter's industrial hygienist's dose reconstruction opinions, and denied as moot the part of the motion aimed at Vigor's expert because Vigor had settled.
• Clayton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted Syd Carpenter's motion for partial summary judgment on the strict liability, conspiracy and breach of warranty claims, denied it on unspecified miscellaneous claims, and granted the Claytons' motion against Syd Carpenter's government contractor defense.
• Clayton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2018). The court granted Saberhagen's motion for judgment on the pleadings because the Claytons sued more than three years after Saberhagen dissolved, denied their Rule 56(d) discovery request, and denied their motion for relief from a deadline as moot.
• Clayton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2018). The federal district court denied William and Jill Clayton's motion for an expedited December 2018 trial against the defendants and said it would enter its standard scheduling order.
• Clayton v. American Biltrate (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2008). The Rhode Island Superior Court denied Caterpillar's motion for summary judgment without prejudice as premature, because Caterpillar had not answered the plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories.