Asbestos Cases A–Z: C

317 decisions whose name begins with C.

• Crossland v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court granted Woodward Design & Build's summary judgment motion on the strict liability claim and on exposure to products other than joint compound and pipe insulation, denied it on the negligence claim based on those two products, and denied Woodward's motion to exclude the two causation experts.
• Crossland v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court granted defendant Burmaster Land and Development Co.'s unopposed motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Linda Crossland because she identified no evidence of exposure to asbestos from Burmaster's activities.
• Crossland v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted plaintiff Linda Crossland's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that defendants Avondale and Hopeman were not entitled to government contractor (Boyle) or Yearsley immunity against her failure-to-warn and safety claims.
• Crowder V AW Chesterton Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2009). The court granted Volkswagen Group of America's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint and all cross-claims against it as barred by Indiana's statute of repose; the action continued against the remaining defendants.
• Crowe v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2019). Affirmed the circuit court's judgment for CSX, holding that the LHWCA, as amended in 1972, applied to Mr. Crowe and was his exclusive remedy, so his FELA claim against CSX failed.
• Crowley Maritime Corporation v. Boston Old Colony Insurance Company (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2008). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order denying the foreign insurers' (West of England and United Kingdom Mutual) petition to compel arbitration of the equitable contribution claims brought by Boston Old Colony and Glens Falls.
• Csr, Limited v. Taylor (Maryland Court of Appeals, 2009). The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the Court of Special Appeals and directed it to affirm the Baltimore City Circuit Court's dismissal of CSR, Limited for lack of personal jurisdiction, so CSR won and the estates lost.
• CSX Transp., Inc. v. Hensley (U.S. Supreme Court, 2009). The Supreme Court summarily reversed the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which had upheld Hensley's $5 million jury verdict against CSX, and remanded because the trial court wrongly refused CSX's requested fear-of-cancer jury instruction.
• Cundiff v. Lone Star Industries, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs Charles and Glenda Cundiff against Lone Star Industries, rejecting its federal enclave, evidentiary, fault-allocation and excessive-damages challenges.
• Cunningham v. Aerco Intl. (New York Supreme Court, 2017). The court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate eleven asbestos cases, ordering four joint-trial groups of two or three cases each and separate trials for the Keith and Reno cases over the defendants' objections.
• Cunningham v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2008). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for Buffalo Pumps and Leslie Controls and sent the case back, because the trial court refused a consumer expectations instruction and used an erroneous special verdict form.
• Cuomo v. Crane Co. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 2014). The Second Circuit reversed the district court's order remanding the case to state court, holding that Crane Co. had shown a colorable federal contractor defense sufficient for federal officer removal, so Crane won and Susan Cuomo lost the remand.
• Curry v. American Standard (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The court sustained Buffalo Pumps' first objection only in part, overruled its other objections, and adopted the magistrate panel's recommendation denying Buffalo's summary judgment motion, so the estate of Michael Curry's claim against Buffalo continues.
• Curry v. American Standard (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The district court overruled Crane Co.'s three objections and adopted the magistrate judges' recommendation to deny Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so the estate of Michael Curry's claims against Crane Co. continue; the bare-metal argument was denied without prejudice to refiling after remand.
• Curry v. American Standard, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2009). The district court denied plaintiff Michael Curry's motion to remand, keeping the case in federal court on Foster Wheeler's federal officer removal.
• Curtin v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2020). The court dismissed the claims against Cyprus and Avon without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction and granted plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss the claims against JJCI without prejudice, denying JJCI's surreply and pleadings motions.
• Curtis v. Abb Incorporated (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2015). The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's summary judgment for ABB, Eaton and Schneider Electric and remanded for further proceedings, ruling for plaintiff Christopher Curtis on the exposure and product identification question.