Asbestos Cases A–Z: E

68 decisions whose name begins with E.

• Estes v. Eaton Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal reversed the order granting plaintiff Norman Estes a new trial, rejected his cross-appeal challenging the jury's verdict, and reinstated and affirmed the judgment for defendant Eaton Corporation.
• Evans v. 3M Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2017). The court denied the defendants' omnibus motion in limine to preclude plaintiffs' causation experts and denied a Frye hearing, so plaintiffs (Jeanne Evans, estate and spouse) prevailed over remaining defendant Burnham.
• Evans v. CBS Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2017). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the unopposed summary judgment motions of CBS, Crane, Union Carbide, Ingersoll Rand, FMC, McNally and Western Auto Supply against plaintiffs Icom and Johanna Evans.
• Evans v. Certainteed Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 8th Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order granting CertainTeed a new trial on all issues, ruling against the Evanses, and declined to reach the punitive damages and CertainTeed's cross-appeal issues.
• Evans v. Flowserve US Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2017). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and granted the unopposed summary judgment motions of Gardner Denver, Flowserve, Atwood & Morrill and Nash Engineering against plaintiffs Icom and Johanna Evans, because Mr. Evans identified no product made by any of them.
• Evans v. Foster Wheeler Energy, Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2016). The magistrate judge recommended denying the Evans plaintiffs' motion to remand, finding that Foster Wheeler, Westinghouse and Crane each established federal officer removal jurisdiction.
• Evans v. Imo Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2019). The court granted John Crane's motion to exclude Plaintiff's Navy expert, Captain Moore, only as to his testimony on Navy warning requirements, and denied it on Navy procurement, undisclosed reliance documents and asbestos exposure, so Plaintiff mostly prevailed.
• Evans v. John Crane, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2019). The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions in limine on collateral sources and wrongful death damages, denied John Crane's motion to exclude survival damages, denied its request for a bifurcated trial, and overruled its objections to the magistrate judge's ruling that plaintiff's Navy procurement expert was qualified.
• Evans v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The court granted Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ruling against the Evans daughters, who did not oppose it.
• Everett v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2022). The appeals court granted the joint motion of the plaintiffs and Riley Power and dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal as to Riley Power, leaving the appeals against Foster Wheeler and Peter Kiewit (Level 3) pending.
• Everett v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2023). The court reversed summary judgment for Peter Kiewit, affirmed summary judgment for Foster Wheeler, reversed the denial of the Everetts' motion for new trial and remanded for a contradictory hearing, and dismissed the defendants' answers to the appeal as moot.
• Everitt v. Pneumo Abex, LLC (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi, 2009). The district court granted Pneumo Abex's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion, ruling that the plaintiffs' contract and fraud claims over the asbestos settlement were time-barred in part and otherwise without merit.
• Ewing v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, 2003). The court of appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment sustaining the exception of no cause of action filed by the executive officers and insurers, so the Ewing survivors' loss of consortium claims were dismissed.
• Ex parte Wilkerson (Alabama Supreme Court, 2000). The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals' affirmance of summary judgment for Burlington Northern and Illinois Central railroads and remanded, because when Wilkerson's FELA claim accrued was a jury question.
• Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Altimore (Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District, 2008). The court of appeals reversed the exemplary damages judgment for Louise Altimore against Exxon Mobil and rendered a take-nothing judgment, holding the evidence legally insufficient to show malice.
• Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Altimore (Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District, 2007). The court of appeals reversed the judgment for Louise Altimore and rendered a take-nothing judgment, holding Exxon owed her no duty before 1972 because take-home asbestos risk was not foreseeable to it until then.
• Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Altimore (Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District, 2006). The court reversed the trial court's judgment on the jury verdict for Louise Altimore and rendered a take-nothing judgment, holding Exxon Mobil owed her no duty during the relevant period.
• Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Minton (Virginia Supreme Court, 2013). The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the jury verdict for Minton against Exxon Mobil and remanded for further proceedings, because the trial court wrongly excluded evidence of the Shipyard's knowledge and safety measures. It also reversed the punitive damages award and entered final judgment on that claim for Exxon.