Asbestos Cases A–Z: G

182 decisions whose name begins with G.

• Gitto v. AW Chesterton Co., Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The district court overruled Crane Co.'s objections and adopted the magistrate panel's recommendation denying Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so the Gittos' claims against Crane Co. continue; the bare-metal argument was denied without prejudice to refiling in the transferor court.
• Glein v. Boeing Company (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2011). The court granted Betty Glein's motion to remand and sent the case back to the Madison County, Illinois circuit court, because Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. failed to prove federal officer removal jurisdiction.
• Glein v. Boeing Company (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2010). The court granted Betty Glein's motion to remand and sent the case back to Madison County, Illinois state court, rejecting United Technologies Corporation's federal officer removal.
• Glenn v. 3M Co. (South Carolina Court of Appeals, 2023). The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Fisher Controls' JNOV and new trial motions, the jury instruction rulings and the discovery sanctions, in favor of Rita Glenn, but remanded for the trial court to review the settlement documents and reconsider the setoff amounts.
• Godbout v. WLB Holding, Inc. (Maine Supreme Judicial Court, 2010). The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Superior Court's dismissal of the Godbouts' complaint against WLB Holding, Inc., holding it was barred by the three-year statute of repose for dissolved corporations.
• Goede v. Aerojet General Corporation (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, 3rd Division, 2004). The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs against Aerojet, rejecting all of Aerojet's points on appeal, including its challenges to the discovery sanction, expert exclusion, choice of law, remittitur and jury instructions.
• Gold v. Avon Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The trial court denied defendant Revlon's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so the claims by Victoria Kaye's estate against Revlon continue.
• Golden v. Alliance Laundry Sys. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court granted plaintiff Marvin Golden's motion to vacate the Special Master's recommendation, rejected the defendants' forum objection, and directed that the case be placed on the October 2013 In-Extremis docket.
• Goldman v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (Ohio Supreme Court, 1987). The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, held that neither alternative liability nor market-share liability applied, and remanded to reinstate summary judgment for all the asbestos-company defendants against the executrix of Roy Goldman's estate.
• Golik v. CBS Corp. (Oregon Court of Appeals, 2020). The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting Georgia-Pacific (as successor to Crown Zellerbach) a new trial and vacating the judgment for Golik's estate, and also affirmed the denial of Georgia-Pacific's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• Gomcsak v. US Steel Corp. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 9th Appellate District, 2008). The court of appeals affirmed the Lorain County judgment on the jury verdict for U.S. Steel, rejecting the widow Phyllis Gomcsak's challenges to the limit on her expert's testimony and to the denial of a new trial.
• Gomez v. Aardvark Contractors, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The district court denied the Jefferson Parish School Board's motion for partial summary judgment seeking an automatic virile share credit for the Johns-Manville Trust, and denied Huntington Ingalls' withdrawn part of the motion as moot, so the plaintiffs prevailed on the motion.
• Gomez v. Aardvark Contractors, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The court granted Viking Pump's unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed, without prejudice, plaintiff Cary Gomez's claims and the cross-claims of Huntington Ingalls and Jefferson Parish School Board against Viking Pump.
• Gomez v. Aardvark Contractors, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The court granted plaintiff Cary Gomez's motion to extend the deadline for his industrial hygienist expert report to February 7, 2020, and gave the defendants until March 6, 2020 to submit opposing expert reports.
• Gomez v. Aardvark Contractors, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The court granted Nicholls State's unopposed motion to dismiss plaintiff Carey Gomez's claims against it on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds.
• Gomez v. Aardvark Contractors, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2019). The court granted Nicholls State's motion to dismiss the Jefferson Parish School Board's cross-claims on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds and denied the motion as moot as to Huntington Ingalls, which had already dropped its cross-claims.
• Gomez v. Aardvark Contractors, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2018). The court granted Nicholls State's motion to dismiss the executive officer liability, products liability and punitive damages claims (the last two unopposed), denied it as to Gomez's negligence and strict liability claims, and ordered service on the Office of Risk Management within 60 days.
• Gomez v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The court granted Gomez's motion for partial summary judgment against Avondale, barring its government contractor immunity defenses on the failure-to-warn and safety-measure claims, and denied the motion without prejudice as to Hopeman Brothers because of its bankruptcy stay.
• Gonzales v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The court denied Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all claims and cross-claims against it, finding fact issues for trial.
• Gooding v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The district court denied seven defendants' motions for summary judgment (Bayer CropScience, Swiftships, Foster Wheeler, General Electric, ViacomCBS, Bollinger Shipyards Lockport, Boland Marine), leaving the plaintiffs' claims for trial.
• Gooding v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The district court denied Buck Kreihs's motion for summary judgment against the plaintiffs' claims and Avondale's and Bossier's crossclaims, so the claims against Buck Kreihs go forward.
• Gooding v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted Travelers Indemnity Company's summary judgment motion and dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' direct-action claims against it, because there was no evidence the decedent was at Swiftships during Travelers' coverage period.
• Gooding v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The court granted insurer Lamorak's motion to stay the action because of its Pennsylvania liquidation, administratively closed the case, and denied the plaintiffs' motion to sever the claims against Lamorak and its insureds.
• Gooding v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The court granted Travelers' unopposed summary judgment motion, dismissing the Avondale Interests' cross-claims because Travelers issued no liability policies to Gretna Machine from 1967 through 1979.
• Gooding v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court denied Swiftships, Inc.'s motion to reconsider its earlier denial of summary judgment, so the plaintiffs (Decedent's heirs) prevailed on the motion and the claims against Swiftships remain for trial.
• Goodrich v. John Crane, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, 2018). The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motions to limit defense experts McCloskey and Henshaw, granted the plaintiffs' motion to bar fiber potency ratio testimony, denied the plaintiffs' motion on dose reconstruction, and denied John Crane's motion on regulatory statements without prejudice.
• Goodrich v. John Crane, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, 2018). The magistrate judge granted plaintiffs' motion in limine, barring John Crane, Inc. from offering evidence that the Navy's knowledge or negligence was a superseding cause or part of the state of the art.
• Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Rogers (Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2017). The court of appeals overruled Goodyear's challenges to the gross negligence and causation findings but sustained its challenge to the exemplary damages cap calculation, suggesting that the Rogers family remit $1,740,000 of the $2,890,000 award; if they do, the judgment is modified to $1,150,000 and affirmed, and if not, it is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
• Gorman-Rupp Company v. Hall (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2005). The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment and rendered judgment for Gorman-Rupp Company, against plaintiff Bobby G. Hall.
• Gorton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2018). The court granted dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction for Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell and AT & T, Inc., found jurisdiction over Ford and AT & T Corp., but dismissed the claims against those two without prejudice as conclusory, allowing plaintiffs to amend.
• Gorton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2022). The court granted Warren Pumps' motion to vacate the default judgment entered for Ms. Gorton, holding the judgment void because the amended complaint with a new wrongful death claim was not properly served on Warren Pumps.
• Gorton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2020). The district court denied the defendants' motion (Eaton, joined by Schneider Electric and Aurora Pump) to exclude plaintiff's experts Dr. Kradin and Dr. Kipen, so plaintiff won this ruling.
• Gorton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2020). The court granted in part and denied in part Mrs. Gorton's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint against AT&T Corp. It allowed the intentional fraudulent concealment claim, the claims based on AT&T Corp. as manufacturer and supplier of asbestos-filled pillows or bags, and the loss of consortium claim. It denied the negligence and recklessness claims against AT&T Corp. as Mr. Gorton's employer, which are barred by Ohio workers' compensation law.
• Gorton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2019). The court denied Ford's and AT&T Corp.'s motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction but granted their motions for failure to state a claim, dismissing both from the amended complaint without prejudice.
• Gorton v. Eaton Corporation (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2022). The district court denied Eaton Corporation's motion for summary judgment, so Rhonda Gorton's claims against Eaton can go to a jury.
• Gorton v. Gardner Denver, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2022). The court construed Gardner Denver's summary judgment motion as a Rule 12(b)(1) motion and granted it because Mrs. Gorton's earlier notice of dismissal had automatically dismissed her claims against Gardner Denver without prejudice, leaving no case or controversy; the rest of the motion was denied.
• Gorton v. Warren Pumps, LLC (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2023). The district court granted Warren Pumps' motion for summary judgment on all claims, ruling against Mrs. Gorton because the government contractor defense barred her product claims and the fraudulent concealment claim failed.
• Goss v. American Cyanamid Co. (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 1994). The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs Goss and the Patullos against Porter Hayden, but vacated the judgment based on the second jury verdict, reinstated the original verdicts (which assigned part of the fault to Madsen & Howell), and remanded for amended judgments.
• Gottschall v. Crane Co. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2014). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Crane Co. and remanded with instructions to deny Crane's motion, so the Gottschall family won.
• Grabowski v. Turner & Newall (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1980). The court granted summary judgment for the defendant asbestos suppliers in the DaMato, Lindahl, Saylor and Pearson cases as time-barred, and denied it in the Grabowski, Gravatt and Marincola cases because of factual gaps.
• Gradwell v. AS Helbig Constr. Co. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1989). The court of appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal of W.G. Lockhart Construction Co. and W.E. Plechaty Co. and held that the widow, Mary Jane Gradwell, could join them as parties in her workers' compensation death-benefits appeal.
• Graffagnino v. Fibreboard Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1985). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of all defendants, holding that the widow's wrongful death and survival claims were barred by the 1981 release for released defendants and by the release's assignment for unreleased defendants.
• Graham v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2011). The court denied defendant Aurora Pump Company's motion for a protective order and confirmed the Special Master's recommendation requiring Aurora to produce microfilm sales records and drawings to plaintiff George Graham.
• Graham v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2021). The court granted plaintiff Graham's motion to voluntarily dismiss her case without prejudice so she could refile in New York state court, over the objections of defendants including Revlon, and denied the pending motions to dismiss as moot.
• Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Inc. v. 37th Circuit Court Judge (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2008). On remand from the Michigan Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals denied Grand Trunk Western Railroad's complaint for superintending control, so the trial court could try the two asbestos cases at once before separate juries; one judge dissented.
• Grande v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 2014). The court denied Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment on product exposure and punitive damages, so plaintiff Lisa Grande's wrongful death claims proceed, and granted Crane Co.'s unopposed request to sever punitive damages for trial.
• Grant v. American Sugar Refining, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2007). The appeals court reversed the summary judgment for Eagle, Inc. and remanded to the trial court, ruling for plaintiff Thelonius Grant because genuine factual issues about exposure remained and the trial court misapplied the expert-evidence standard.
• Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Co. v. DN Lukens, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 2013). The court granted in part and denied in part the insurers' summary judgment motions: it declared that Boston Gas pro rata allocation and the continuous trigger apply to the MacDowell suits, that Lukens need not pay a share of the Mastrogiacomo settlement, and it denied a declaration of each party's share; it granted the insurers judgment on Lukens' Chapter 93A claims over refusal to cede defense control but denied it on the settlement claims.
• Graver v. Foster Wheeler Corp. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2014). The Superior Court reversed the judgment for David and Frances Graver because the improvements-to-real-property statute of repose barred their claims against Foster Wheeler, and relinquished jurisdiction.
• Graves v. Riverwood Intern. Corp. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 2004). The court of appeal affirmed the partial summary judgment for Olin on the third-party beneficiary contract claim, reversed it on the assumption-of-duty claim, and remanded for further proceedings, so the plaintiffs partly won and Olin partly won.