Asbestos Cases A–Z: D

137 decisions whose name begins with D.

• Donovan v. Oil, Chem., and Atom. Workers Intern. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1983). The Fifth Circuit vacated the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission's order denying the Secretary of Labor's motion to vacate its review order and remanded for dismissal of the Union's petition, so the Secretary won and the Union lost.
• Doolin v. American Optical Corporation (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, 2017). The court denied the plaintiff's Rule 11 motion for sanctions against defendant BorgWarner Morse TEC LLC, so Morse TEC prevailed on the motion.
• Doolin v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, 2018). The district court excluded the plaintiff's specific-causation expert, Dr. Kradin, and then granted summary judgment to Ford Motor Company and Pneumo Abex LLC, ruling against the estate's representative, Stacey Doolin.
• Dorfman v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The trial court denied defendant United Conveyor Corporation's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs (the estate and widow of Linton Dorfman) kept their claims against it.
• Dorse v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 1990). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the plaintiff Josephine Dorse, rejecting Eagle-Picher Industries' government contractor defense.
• Dougan v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. (Connecticut Supreme Court, 2019). The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Sikorsky Aircraft and Carrier against the four plaintiffs' medical monitoring claims, because they offered no expert evidence that monitoring was reasonably necessary for them.
• Dougan v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Connecticut Supreme Court, 2020). The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Sikorsky and Carrier because the four plaintiffs offered no expert opinion that medical monitoring was reasonably necessary for each of them.
• Dougherty v. AO Smith Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2014). The magistrate judge recommended granting the Doughertys' motion to remand to Delaware Superior Court, finding Crane's federal officer removal proper but declining supplemental jurisdiction after Plaintiffs disclaimed all Navy and federal-site claims.
• Douglas v. Imerys Talc America, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2019). The district court denied Johnson & Johnson's motion to dismiss for improper venue or transfer under § 1406, and granted plaintiff's voluntary dismissal without prejudice of Imerys Talc America, which lifted the bankruptcy stay.
• Douglas v. Imerys Talc America, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2019). The court denied plaintiff Douglas's motion to remand because complete diversity existed, and granted PTI Union's motion to dismiss the claims against it with prejudice, so PTI Union won and Douglas lost on both motions.
• Douglas v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2020). The court granted Johnson & Johnson Consumer's motion and transferred the case from the Eastern District of Missouri to the Eastern District of Tennessee, over plaintiff Douglas's opposition.
• Downs v. 3M Company (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2010). The Rhode Island Superior Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, so the nonresident plaintiffs (the Downs and Kroskob families) kept their asbestos cases in Rhode Island.
• Droz v. Hennessy Industries, LLC (Delaware Supreme Court, 2022). The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's summary judgment for Hennessy Industries and remanded, holding Shelley Droz raised a genuine issue of material fact that her husband was exposed to asbestos dust from grinding asbestos-containing brake drum shoes.
• Dube v. Pittsburgh Corning (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 1989). The First Circuit reversed the trial court's judgment for the United States, holding the discretionary function exception did not shield the Navy, and remanded for entry of judgment on the trial court's findings (one-third government share) in favor of the asbestos manufacturers' contribution claims.
• Duffy v. American Standard, Inc. (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2006). The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of summary judgment to Scheid/HiMEC, holding they had not shown a common enterprise with Hormel, so the Duffys could proceed with their suit.
• Duffy v. CBS Corporation (Maryland Court of Appeals, 2018). The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the Court of Special Appeals and the grant of summary judgment for CBS Corporation (Westinghouse), holding the statute of repose did not bar the Estate of James Piper's claims, and remanded so the circuit court's judgment could be reversed.
• Duffy v. CBS Corporation (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2017). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court's summary judgment for CBS Corporation, holding that Maryland's statute of repose barred Piper's (later his estate's) asbestos claim against CBS.
• Dufrene v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2001). The appeals court granted Avondale's writ, reversed the trial court's denial of its exception of no cause of action/no right of action, and dismissed Corky Dufrene, as administrator and tutor of the granddaughter's estate, as a plaintiff.
• Dugas v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, 2016). The court granted the defendants' motion in part, dismissing Marsha Dugas's individual claims (including Count IV, loss of consortium) so they proceed within the wrongful death action, and denied the motion to strike and the demand for more detail about survivors.
• Dugas v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, 2016). The court granted 3M summary judgment on the design defect and fraudulent concealment claims, denied it on the failure to warn claim, and partly excluded plaintiff's expert Darell Bevis (no design opinion; product identification opinion allowed).
• Dugas v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, 2015). The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss: the negligence, strict liability and loss of consortium claims survived against 3M, Shell and UTC, but the fraudulent concealment claims against UTC, IMO and Shell were dismissed with prejudice.
• Dugger v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2017). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court, keeping the case in federal court on Crane Co.'s federal officer removal.
• Dugger v. Union Carbide Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2019). The court denied the plaintiffs' motions in limine to exclude supplemental reports by Honeywell's experts Crapo, Watson and Chirieac, finding the late disclosure harmless, but ordered Honeywell to pay reasonable costs of deposing the experts on the new material.
• Dugger v. Union Carbide Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2019). The court denied Honeywell's motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine factual dispute over whether Bendix brake boxes carried asbestos warnings, so the plaintiffs' claims against Honeywell proceed.
• Dugger v. Union Carbide Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2019). The district court granted in part and denied in part Honeywell's Daubert motion: plaintiffs' experts Dr. Frank, Dr. Maddox and Dr. Finkelstein may testify, but may not rely on the 'each and every exposure' theory.
• Dukes v. Pneumo Abex Corporations (Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District, 2008). The appellate court reversed the jury verdict for plaintiff Doris Dukes against Honeywell and remanded for a new trial, because the trial court wrongly admitted a 1948 nolo contendere price-fixing plea and a Bendix employee's letter; it denied Honeywell's request for judgment n.o.v. and its motion to return discovery documents.
• Dumin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 1994). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Owens-Corning Fiberglas, holding that the trial court correctly directed a verdict against Dumin on exposure to OCF Kaylo aboard the Pocono because the evidence was insufficient.
• Dunkel v. Boetler (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2009). The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' denial of the executor's petition for a writ of prohibition, leaving in place the trial court's discovery limits favoring Arkema, Goodrich and Big Rivers.
• Dunlavey v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2024). The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion and remanded the case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, finding NASSCO failed to show it acted under a federal officer so federal-officer removal was improper.
• Dunn v. Hovic (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1993). The en banc Third Circuit rejected Owens-Corning's challenges to liability for punitive damages, but vacated the $2 million punitive award and remanded for entry of $1,000,000, so Dunn won liability and a reduced award while Owens-Corning won a further reduction.
• Dunn v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass (U.S. District Court, District of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix, 1991). The court denied Owens-Corning's motion for JNOV and for a new trial on liability, but ordered a new trial unless plaintiff Dunn accepted a reduction of compensatory damages from $1.3 million to $500,000 and punitive damages from $25 million to $2 million.
• Durham v. Ford Motor Company (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2014). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's summary judgment and partial summary judgment for Ford Motor Company on both the plaintiff's appeal and Ford's cross-appeal, rejecting the Durham estate's premises and products claims and Ford's request for total immunity.
• Dusto v. Rogers Corporation (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2023). The Appellate Court reversed the summary judgment for Rogers Corporation on workers' compensation exclusivity and remanded for further proceedings, but affirmed the dismissal of the claims against Special Electric Company, Inc. as time barred.
• Duty v. Trz Realty, LLC (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2017). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment (nonsuit) for TRZ Realty, LLC after the trial court excluded plaintiffs' causation expert, remanded for further proceedings, and dismissed TRZ's consolidated appeal over expert fees as moot.
• Dyer v. Aurora Pump Co. (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2008). The court granted the Dyers' motion for leave to amend their complaint to add Clifton Associates and New England Insulation as defendants, and moved the trial to October 2008 so the new defendants could conduct discovery.
• Dykes v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1986). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the evidentiary rulings and the punitive damages availability for plaintiff Helen Dykes, but reversed the denial of National Gypsum's motion to amend the judgment and remanded so the Tennessee contribution statute could be applied to set off the punitive award.
• Dykstra v. AP Green Industries, Inc. (Illinois Appellate Court, 5th District, 2001). The appellate court affirmed the Madison County trial court's denial of the defendants' motion to dismiss or transfer on forum non conveniens grounds, so plaintiff Dykstra kept his chosen forum and defendants Burns, Certain-Teed, Pfizer, Quigley and Union Carbide lost.