Asbestos Cases A–Z: D

137 decisions whose name begins with D.

• Dabaldo v. Urs Energy & Construction (Delaware Supreme Court, 2014). The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's summary judgment for URS Energy & Construction and Crane Co. and remanded, holding the DaBaldos' asbestosis claim was timely.
• Dahlke v. Cascade Acoustics, Inc. (Oregon Court of Appeals, 2007). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for FMD Corporation and Drake Management Company, rejecting the estate's claims against the dissolved corporation and its alleged successor.
• DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Ferrante (Georgia Supreme Court, 2006). The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the trial courts' rulings that Georgia's 2005 asbestos claims Act could not constitutionally be applied to the plaintiffs' pending asbestos cases, so the plaintiffs won and the defendants lost.
• Daley v. AW Chesterton, Inc. (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 2012). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's order reversing summary judgment for U.S. Supply and Duro-Dyne, allowing Daley's mesothelioma suit to proceed, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Daley v. AW Chesterton, Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2009). The Superior Court vacated the trial court's summary judgment for Chesterton, U.S. Supply and Duro-Dyne and remanded, so Daley's mesothelioma suit could go forward.
• Dana Companies, LLC v. Crawford (Delaware Supreme Court, 2011). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed denial of Dana's and Zoom's motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, but reversed in part the denial of the plaintiffs' additur motion and remanded for reconsideration of the damages awards.
• Dandridge v. Crane Co. (U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, 2016). The district court granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment, ruling against plaintiff Linda Dandridge, because she showed no genuine factual dispute that Crane owed her husband a duty to warn about asbestos flange gaskets.
• Daniels v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. (Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, 4th Division, 2019). The appellate court affirmed the judgment for plaintiff Sharon Daniels, as administrator of Patrick O'Reilly's estate, against John Crane, Inc., and upheld the denial of John Crane's motion for a new trial.
• Daniels v. Combustion Engineering, Inc. (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Eastern Section, 1978). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment on a jury verdict for the defendant insulation manufacturers, overruling all of plaintiffs Thomas and Oma Daniels' assignments of error.
• Daniels v. Venta Corp. (Illinois Appellate Court, 2nd District, 2022). The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the sixth amended complaint with prejudice and remanded, ruling for plaintiff Anna Daniels against Venta Corporation (formerly ABC), Sycamore Industrial Park Associates and Robert Boey.
• Danos v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2008). On rehearing, the court vacated its earlier opinion, reversed summary judgment for Foster Wheeler, and remanded, finding a genuine issue of material fact on Mr. Danos' exposure to asbestos from Foster Wheeler boilers.
• Danos v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2008). The court of appeal affirmed the summary judgment for Foster Wheeler against the widow and adult children of Golzie Danos, finding no factual support that he was exposed to asbestos from Foster Wheeler products (one judge dissented, and rehearing was later granted).
• Danos v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that the Avondale defendants timely removed the case under the federal officer removal statute and asserted a colorable federal defense.
• Darden v. Union Carbide Corporation (Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District, 2010). The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for Union Carbide, holding the Dardens' 1990 release barred the family's gross negligence and exemplary damages claims and supported Union Carbide's indemnity counterclaim; the Darden family lost.
• Dartez v. Fibreboard Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1985). The Fifth Circuit vacated the $200,000 jury judgment for Dartez and remanded for a new trial against Celotex, Fibreboard, Owens-Illinois and Pittsburgh Corning, but reversed the judgment against Raymark and dismissed it from the case.
• Data v. AO Smith Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2021). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment on product identification for most moving defendants (including M.S. Jacobs, Flowserve, Armstrong International, William Powell, Clyde Union, IUNA, Atwood, Viking, Dezurik, Alfa Laval, Gardner Denver, Hyster-Yale, BW/IP and Clark), denying it for Honeywell and Air & Liquid Systems, granting it in part and denying it in part for Dana, GE and FMC, and denying Nash's motion without prejudice because of its bankruptcy stay.
• Data v. AO Smith Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2021). The magistrate judge recommended denying Pennsylvania Power Company's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Alfa Laval's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so the plaintiffs' claims against both could go forward.
• Data v. Joy Global Underground Mining (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2022). The magistrate judge recommended granting Joy Global Underground Mining's summary judgment motion as to Mr. Data's exposure from being near others' work on the Joy air compressor, and denying it as to his hands-on gasket work on the compressor, so that claim goes forward for the plaintiff.
• Data v. Pennsylvania Power Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2023). The district court sustained Plaintiffs' objections to the magistrate judge's order, lifted the stay, and granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case against Penn Power to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, over Penn Power's opposition.
• Data v. Pennsylvania Power Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2023). The district judge sustained Penn Power's objections, set aside the magistrate judge's order denying a stay, and directed that the case against Penn Power be stayed until the state occupational disease proceedings and appeals are finally resolved, favoring Penn Power over the Data plaintiffs.
• Davenport v. Mcic, Inc. (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2017). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed summary judgment for MCIC, Inc. (McCormick) and the Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, and the Davenport family lost.
• David v. Slakey Brothers, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2013). The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for Slakey Brothers and held plaintiffs recover their appeal costs, because the trial court wrongly refused to consider the decedent's declaration, which raised a triable issue on exposure.
• Davidson v. Georgia Pacific LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, 2014). The court excluded the plaintiffs' causation expert's "every exposure" testimony and granted summary judgment to CertainTeed, Beazer East, Georgia-Pacific and Union Carbide, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice and dismissing the third-party complaints as moot.
• Davidson v. Georgia Pacific LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, 2014). The court granted partial summary judgment for defendants Union Carbide, CertainTeed, Beazer East and Georgia-Pacific, dismissing the plaintiffs' survival claim as prescribed.
• Davidson v. Georgia Pacific, LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, 2014). The court held that plaintiffs' expert disclosures did not meet Rule 26, allowed plaintiffs to file full reports for Dr. Schwartz and Mr. Ewing with an extended deadline and a continued trial, and struck Dr. Brody; the defendants' motion to strike was granted only as to Brody.
• Davidson v. Georgia Pacific, LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, 2012). The court granted the Davidson family's motion to remand, rejecting Georgia-Pacific's claim that Graves and Taylor were improperly joined, and sent the case back to the 26th Judicial District Court in Bossier Parish, Louisiana.
• Davidson v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2016). The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment, which had denied remand and dismissed all claims, and remanded for an order sending the case back to state court, ruling for the Davidson plaintiffs over Georgia-Pacific, CertainTeed and the other defendants.
• Davies v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (Florida District Court of Appeal, 3rd District, 1994). The appellate court reversed the final judgment for Owens-Illinois after a jury verdict and remanded for a new trial, because excluding the Ames deposition was an abuse of discretion that favored the plaintiff, Frances Davies.
• Davis v. 3M Company (Tennessee Court of Appeals, 2020). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment against Ameron International Corporation, holding that the $750,000 noneconomic damages cap was properly applied before apportioning fault, which left Mrs. Davis with $115,247.91.
• Davis v. Ace Hardware Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2014). The magistrate judge recommended granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the Davises' complaint without prejudice for failing to file the medical report required by Florida's Asbestos Act, denying Paccar's separate motion to dismiss as moot, and granting a stay of discovery.
• Davis v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 5th Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation against the Davis family's claims, with costs to Foster Wheeler.
• Davis v. Honeywell International Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2016). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on the jury verdict for plaintiff Nickole Davis against Honeywell International Inc., holding that the trial court properly admitted the plaintiff's expert and properly refused Honeywell's proposed causation instruction.
• Davis v. John Crane, Inc. (Georgia Court of Appeals, 2019). The court reversed summary judgment for John Crane, Inc. on product identification, and affirmed summary judgment for FMC Corporation on the negligent design and failure-to-warn claims over third-party replacement parts.
• Davis v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2010). The court conditionally affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs John and Anna Davis against Leslie Controls and Warren Pumps, ordering a new trial on non-economic damages unless plaintiffs accept a remittitur of $2,130,000 per defendant.
• Davis v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. (Georgia Court of Appeals, 2018). Affirmed the superior court's ruling upholding the State Board of Workers' Compensation's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, so Davis's family lost their claim against Louisiana-Pacific in Georgia.
• Day v. 3M Company Inc. (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2024). The court denied Union Carbide's and Graybar's motions to exclude Dr. Kradin and Dr. Ellenbecker, except that Dr. Ellenbecker may not testify on the design adequacy of the warnings, so the plaintiffs largely prevailed.
• Day v. 3M Company Inc. (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2024). The Rhode Island Superior Court denied summary judgment to Ford Motor Company and to Graybar Electric Company, so the estate's claims against both go forward, and it also denied Ford's motion for partial entry of separate and final judgment.
• Dean v. Bur. OF Workers'comp. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 5th Appellate District, 2010). The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for Conesville Coal Preparation, American Electric Power and the Bureau of Workers' Compensation, rejecting the widow's claim for death benefits.
• Deaville v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The court granted plaintiff Brent Deaville's motion to remand, ruling that defendants Exxon Mobil, Ferguson Enterprises and J-M Manufacturing failed to show Turner Industries was improperly joined, so complete diversity was lacking and the case went back to state court.
• Deaville v. Exxon Mobil Corporation (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2021). The appeals court granted Exxon's writ, reversed the trial court's denial of Exxon's exception of improper venue, rendered judgment granting the exception (Exxon won, Deaville lost), lifted its stay, and remanded.
• DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. (Minnesota Supreme Court, 1982). The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the asbestos defendants and remanded, holding the wrongful death limitation period can be tolled for fraudulent concealment, so the trustee for DeCosse's heirs may proceed.
• Deem v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2023). On remand from the Ninth Circuit, the court granted summary judgment to John Crane, Crosby Valve and William Powell on causation, dismissing the widow's maritime wrongful death claims with prejudice, and denied the defendants' limitations-based motions to dismiss.
• Deem v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2020). The court granted summary judgment to Air & Liquid Systems, Foster-Wheeler and Warren Pumps on Deem's maritime law claims, and denied Deem's motions for partial summary judgment on their affirmative defenses as moot.
• Deem v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted Crosby Valve's motion to dismiss Sherri Deem's maritime wrongful death claims as time-barred and denied Crosby's summary judgment motion as moot; Crosby was terminated from the case.
• Deem v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted FMC and McNally's motion to dismiss Deem's non-Washington-law claims as vague, but gave her leave to amend. It also granted Deem's motion to apply maritime law and denied her motion to certify a question to the Washington Supreme Court without prejudice.
• Deem v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted Cleaver-Brooks's motion for summary judgment on Sherri Deem's claims to the extent they arise under Washington law, following its earlier April 25th Order on the statute of limitations.
• Deem v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted summary judgment to FMC, McNally and the joining defendants, barring Mrs. Deem's wrongful death claims against them to the extent they arise under Washington law, because the limitations period on Mr. Deem's personal injury claims against them had run.
• Deem v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court reserved ruling on summary judgment motions by GE, Foster Wheeler and Westinghouse, allowed Mrs. Deem a Rule 56(d) continuance instead of denying the motions as premature, and ordered supplemental briefing on the effect of the Supreme Court's DeVries decision.
• Deem v. William Powell Co. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2022). The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of Sherri Deem's maritime wrongful death claim as time-barred against The William Powell Co., John Crane, and Crosby Valve, and remanded; the claim accrued at death, not at diagnosis.
• Deere v. Lizarraga (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 2019). A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Warden Joe Lizarraga against prisoner Arthur Ray Deere Sr. and struck Deere's unauthorized sur-reply.