Asbestos Cases A–Z: G

182 decisions whose name begins with G.

• Gaddy v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The court granted Ethyl Corporation's motion for remittitur, cutting the verdict to $3,250,661.45 ($3,000,000 general damages plus medical expenses) unless Plaintiffs elect a new trial, and denied Ethyl's new-trial and judgment-as-a-matter-of-law motions on all other grounds.
• Gaddy v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The court denied the plaintiffs' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and left in place the jury's finding that Owens-Illinois was liable for Dr. Gaddy's asbestos exposure at International Paper.
• Galicinao v. McMASTER Carr Supply Company (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2011). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for McMaster-Carr Supply Company, holding that the plaintiffs' evidence raised a triable issue on exposure to the company's asbestos products, and the plaintiffs recovered costs on appeal.
• Galier v. Murco Wall Products, Inc. (Oklahoma Supreme Court, 2022). The Oklahoma Supreme Court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals' decision and affirmed the trial court, holding Oklahoma has specific personal jurisdiction over Murco, so Galier's judgment against Murco stands.
• Gallagher v. American Insulated Wire Corp. (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2014). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the Gallagher and Podedworny asbestos cases for trial over the defendants' objections.
• Gallagher v. National Grid Usa/narragansett Electric. (Rhode Island Supreme Court, 2012). The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decrees, which vacated the trial judge's decrees against USGEN New England and held National Grid USA/Narragansett Electric liable as the employer for Mr. Gallagher's mesothelioma benefits.
• Gallegos v. BNSF Railway Company (U.S. District Court, District of Montana, 2024). The court denied BNSF Railway's renewed motion for spoliation sanctions as procedurally improper and granted in part its motion to bifurcate, adopting the plaintiff's two-stage trial plan.
• Gallegos v. BNSF Railway Company (U.S. District Court, District of Montana, 2023). The district court denied BNSF Railway's motion for spoliation sanctions against the plaintiff (Ms. Moe's estate), finding BNSF had not shown good cause for an autopsy to obtain tissue samples.
• Gallen v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2017). The court granted settled party Clyde Union's motion, quashed defendant The Fairbanks Company's trial subpoena for a Clyde Union witness, and allowed Fairbanks to use Clyde Union's interrogatory answers and deposition at trial under the CMO.
• Gallo v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, 2023). The magistrate judge did not rule on the discovery dispute but proposed severing the claims against Carnival from the other 19 defendants and remanding the others to state court so discovery could proceed, and set a hearing on that idea.
• Gallo v. Carnival Corporation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, 2023). The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand and sent the case back to Texas state court, holding that Carnival Corporation had not shown federal jurisdiction based on the arbitration agreements.
• Ganoe v. Metalclad Insulation Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2014). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment granted to Metalclad Insulation Corporation, ruling that Metalclad had not met its initial burden and that the plaintiffs had raised triable issues of fact, and awarded costs to the plaintiffs.
• Ganske v. Spahn & Rose Lumber Co. (Iowa Supreme Court, 1998). The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Larry and Lois Ganske's common-law suit against his former employers (Spahn and Rose Lumber, Carnation/Nestle, Deere), holding workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy, and found the constitutional challenge waived.
• Garbutt v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court denied Lennox Industries' motion for summary judgment, leaving plaintiffs' claims against Lennox to go forward.
• Garcia v. Duro Dyne Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2007). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for the Garcias against Duro Dyne, denying Duro Dyne's challenges to the future damages award and the offset rulings and rejecting the Garcias' cross-appeal, but amended the judgment to reserve jurisdiction for later offset credits and to correct the economic damages offset figure.
• Gardner v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 1986). The federal district court denied defendant Cassiar Mining Corporation's motion for partial summary judgment, so plaintiffs John and Atha Gardner may pursue claims based on asbestos fibers sold more than six years before suit.
• Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. Little (Virginia Supreme Court, 2005). The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the judgment for the estate of Zebulon Little against Garlock Sealing, holding maritime tort law governed and refusing to review Garlock's complaint about apportionment of damages.
• Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. Pittman (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2010). The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's denial of summary judgment and rendered judgment for the defendants (Garlock, Trane, Rapid-American and the other appellants) against Mary Pittman, because the original complaint was a nullity and her 2005 amended complaint was time-barred.
• Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2015). The district court denied the defendant law firms' and lawyers' motions to transfer venue to Texas or California and to abstain, so Garlock and its litigation management affiliate won and the fraud and RICO suits stay in the Western District of North Carolina.
• Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, A Professional Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2015). The court denied the defendant law firm and lawyers' motions to dismiss as time-barred and to strike or dismiss for failure to state a claim, so Garlock's fraud, conspiracy and RICO claims went forward.
• Garlock v. Gallagher (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2003). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the jury verdicts and the evidentiary and trial-management rulings for the plaintiffs, but reversed the Gallagher judgment calculation in favor of John Crane, Garlock and Anchor on the stipulated dismissal of the cross-claims, and remanded the Tamburrino calculation in Garlock's favor.
• Garner v. Dii Industries, LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, 2011). The district court granted the motions of DII Industries, the DII Industries Asbestos PI Trust, and the trustees to dismiss the estate's asbestos death claim as time-barred, denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend as futile, and directed judgment for the defendants.
• Garner v. Dii Industries, LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, 2010). The court granted the defendants' (DII Industries asbestos trust and its trustee and executive director) motion to dismiss because the plaintiff's amended complaint pleaded no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, and it directed judgment for the defendants.
• Garner v. Ngc Bodily Injury Trust (U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, 2012). The court granted the NGC Bodily Injury Trust's motion to dismiss the estate's personal injury, wrongful death and fraud claims, denied the plaintiff's motions to amend and to file a sur-reply as futile, and directed judgment for the Trust.
• Garrie v. Aiu Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, 2013). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand to Louisiana state court, finding no binding settlement with the non-diverse Cities Services executive officers before removal, so Texaco's removal failed; the request for attorney's fees was denied.
• Gartner v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2022). The trial court denied defendant DAP, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so plaintiff Roberta Gartner's claims against DAP go forward.
• Garza v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2008). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Joseph and Mary Garza against Asbestos Corporation Ltd., declining to overrule Arena v. Owens-Corning and rejecting ACL's challenge to strict liability for a raw asbestos supplier.
• Gaskill v. Abex Corporation (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 2012). The Appellate Division affirmed the Law Division's dismissal of Michael Gaskill's asbestos complaint with prejudice for lying in discovery, so defendants Abex, Honeywell, Volkswagen and Ford prevailed.
• Gates v. Smith Water Products Co. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York, 2014). The district court denied the executor's motion to remand to state court, so the case stays in federal court on Crane Co.'s federal officer removal.
• Gatling v. Eaton Corp. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2002). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for Uniroyal and the other defendants, holding the Gatlings' second suit for symptomatic nonmalignant asbestos disease barred by res judicata and the statute of limitations.
• Gatton v. AP Green Services, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 1998). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for A.P. Green Services, Inc. against the widow and heirs of Jerald Gatton, holding that another worker's deposition from a different case was inadmissible hearsay and left no evidence linking Green to Gatton's asbestos exposure.
• Gaulding v. Celotex Corp. (Texas Supreme Court, 1989). The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment upholding summary judgment for Celotex, National Gypsum, U.S. Gypsum, Keene and GAF against the survivors of Ethel Gaulding.
• Gaunt v. Guy M. Beaty & Co., Inc. (North Carolina Court of Appeals, 2018). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order reducing the employer Beaty and its insurer Berkley's workers' compensation lien against the Estate to zero, ruling for the Estate's personal representative.
• Gauthe v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, 1998). The court of appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal with prejudice of the heirs' wrongful death claims against Avondale Industries, so Avondale won and the Gauthe heirs lost.
• Gauthe v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, 1997). The court affirmed the trial court's ruling sustaining the Avondale executive officers' and insurer's exception of no cause of action against the Gauthe family's wrongful death claim, and remanded to let plaintiffs amend their petition.
• Gautreaux v. Rheem Mfg. Co. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 1996). The court of appeal granted Rheem's writ application but affirmed the trial court's denial of Rheem's exception of no cause of action, so the plaintiffs' tort suit against Rheem continued (two judges dissented).
• Gay v. AO Smith Corp. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2022). The court granted Duquesne Light Company's motion for summary judgment on the remaining premises liability claim, ruling for Duquesne Light and against the estate of Carl Gay.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corp. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2021). The court ruled on General Electric's summary judgment motion in a federal asbestos case, but the opinion contradicts itself: the reasoning finds the plaintiff failed to show enough exposure to GE products and says the motion is granted, while the opening and closing paragraphs say it is denied.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2024). The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for General Electric against the estate of Carl Gay, and affirmed the denial of reconsideration, because GE was entitled to derivative sovereign immunity.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2022). The court granted Duquesne Light Company's non-product motion for summary judgment, ruling against the plaintiff estate because Duquesne Light owed Mr. Gay no duty as landowner or as employer of an independent contractor.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2021). The court denied Power Piping Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so the estate of Carl Gay, represented by his daughter Allisa Gay, may continue its claim against Power Piping.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2021). The district court granted Square D/Schneider Electric's motion for summary judgment against the estate of Carl Gay because the plaintiff did not show that the Square D products at issue contained asbestos.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2021). The district court granted General Electric's motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff, executor of Carl Gay's estate, did not show he was exposed to asbestos from a GE product with enough frequency, regularity and proximity.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2021). The district court granted Yuba Heat Transfer, LLC's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Allisa Gay, executor of Carl Gay's estate, because she did not show Mr. Gay was exposed to asbestos from a Yuba product.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2021). The district court granted Honeywell's motion for summary judgment, ruling for Honeywell and against the plaintiff estate, because the plaintiff did not show Mr. Gay was exposed to asbestos from a Honeywell product.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2021). The district court granted Warren Pumps LLC's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Allisa Gay, executor of Carl Gay's estate, because the evidence did not show he was exposed to asbestos from a Warren pump.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2021). The court granted the Exelon defendants' summary judgment motion on claims about the Limerick Power Station and denied it on claims about the Nine Mile Power Plant, so the estate's claim continues only as to Nine Mile.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2021). The district court granted Viking Pump's motion for summary judgment against the estate of Carl Gay, finding no genuine issue that he was exposed to asbestos from a Viking pump.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2021). The district court granted Carrier Corp.'s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiff, the estate of Carl Gay, could not show Carrier's product was a substantial cause of his mesothelioma.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2021). The district court granted Mueller Steam Specialty's motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff, executor of Carl Gay's estate, did not identify a Mueller Steam product as a cause of his mesothelioma.