Asbestos Cases A–Z: H

245 decisions whose name begins with H.

• H & H Plumbing Co. v. Indus. Comm'n (Illinois Appellate Court, 5th District, 1988). Affirmed the circuit court's confirmation of the Industrial Commission's award of temporary total disability and 10% permanent disability benefits to claimant Carl Wade against employer H & H Plumbing.
• Haas v. 3M Company (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2015). The Third Circuit vacated the District Court's summary judgment for General Electric, which Haas had appealed, and remanded for further proceedings. It also held the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Brasmer's deposition testimony.
• Haas v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2014). The court granted summary judgment to Boeing (government contractor defense), GE and Goodyear (no proof of exposure to their asbestos-containing products), defeating the plaintiffs' claims.
• Hackett v. John Crane, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2002). The Court of Appeal reduced John Crane's settlement credit against Lewis's economic damages by $33,367, which raised the judgment for Lewis and Hackett to $1,026,842, and otherwise affirmed the judgment and the expert witness fee award against Crane.
• Haeck v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2023). The court granted Gary and Elizabeth Haeck's motion to remand the case to state court because 3M's removal was barred by the forum defendant rule, and awarded Plaintiffs $5,000 in fees and costs against 3M.
• Hagen v. Benjamin Foster Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The court denied plaintiff Donna Hagen's motion to remand to New Jersey state court, holding that defendants Foster Wheeler and General Electric properly removed under the federal officer removal statute.
• Hagen v. Celotex Corp. (Missouri Supreme Court, 1991). The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the $2,000,000 jury verdict for the Hagen family, directing judgment for Owens-Illinois and remanding for a new trial against Fibreboard because the plaintiffs' proof of causation was insufficient.
• Hagen v. Rapid American Corp. (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, 4th Division, 1990). The appeal was dismissed because the plaintiffs (the Hagen family) were not parties aggrieved by the order quashing service on Rapid American Corporation and dismissing it without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• Hahn v. New York Air Brake LLC (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2022). The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for New York Air Brake, holding the plaintiffs (Hahn's heirs) could substitute Air Brake for a Doe defendant, and awarded plaintiffs their costs on appeal.
• Hailey v. Air and Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2020). The district court granted summary judgment to Air and Liquid Systems, Crane, CBS, GE and IMO and to the cross-defendants on the cross-claims, because plaintiffs could not show any defendant's product was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Shockley's mesothelioma; plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was denied as moot.
• Hake v. Allied Fluid Products Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2018). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of nonsuit for Honeywell, holding Hake waived his Washington-law argument and could not prove under Kansas law that Bendix brake exposure was a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma.
• Haldaman v. Eaton Corporation (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2014). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's orders granting summary judgment to Eaton, P&H Mining, Reading Crane, Morgan Engineering, CBS Corp. and General Electric, and rejected the Haldaman estate's appeal; the Kentile appeal had been discontinued.
• Hall v. Johnson & Johnson (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2023). The court granted Johnson & Johnson's motions to supplement the class certification record and granted the lead plaintiff's motion to certify a class of J&J investors, finding J&J had not rebutted the presumption of reliance for any of the six alleged corrective disclosures.
• Hall v. Johnson & Johnson (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2019). The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the shareholder securities fraud complaint: claims over talc safety and 'asbestos-free' statements survived against J&J, Gorsky, Goodrich, Casalvieri and Glasgow, while claims over litigation-viability statements and all claims against Caruso, Peterson and Sneed were dismissed.
• Hall v. Kodak Occupational Accidental Death Insurance Plan (U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, 2011). The court granted the defendants' (Kodak plans') motion to dismiss and dismissed the widow's ERISA claims for accidental death and survivor health benefits.
• Hall v. Warren Pumps LLC (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2010). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment for the pump and valve makers (Warren Pumps, Yarway, IMO Industries and Crane Co.) and against Bertie Hall, finding they owed no duty for asbestos products made and supplied by others.
• Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (Louisiana Supreme Court, 1986). Answering a question certified by the Fifth Circuit, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a manufacturer may be held liable for an unreasonably dangerous per se or construction-defective product even if it could not have known of the danger, a result favoring the widow over Johns-Manville.
• Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1985). The en banc Fifth Circuit certified a question to the Louisiana Supreme Court asking whether a strict products liability manufacturer may avoid liability by showing it did not and could not have known of its product's danger; it did not decide the appeal between Halphen and Johns-Manville.
• Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1984). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict for the plaintiff widow, Emma Jean Halphen, against Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (one judge dissenting).
• Hamilton v. Anco Insulation, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit, 2003). The appeals court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for employer C F Industries against its excess insurer Allianz Underwriters, holding the thirty-six month claim provision was not an impossible condition, and costs went to C F Industries.
• Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (California Supreme Court, 2000). The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that Mitchell's second action (for mesothelioma) was not time-barred and that Asbestos Corporation made a general appearance in the first action, so the plaintiffs prevailed on both issues; remanded to resolve remaining issues.
• Hamilton v. Atlas Turner, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1999). The Second Circuit reversed the district court's post-verdict dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding Atlas Turner forfeited the defense, and remanded for consideration of Atlas's other challenges to judgment on the plaintiff's verdict.
• Hamilton v. Garlock, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2000). The court denied Atlas Turner's Rule 50 and 59 motions to set aside the roughly $4.29 million mesothelioma verdict or obtain a new trial, and granted Hamilton's motions for discovery and entry of judgment.
• Hamilton v. Garlock, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1998). After a jury verdict for the plaintiff widow, the court granted Atlas Turner's renewed motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding no waiver, and did not reach the other post-trial motions.
• Hammell v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2021). The court granted Westinghouse leave to file a reply brief but denied its motion for reconsideration of the denial of summary judgment, so the claims by Linda Hammell against Westinghouse continued.
• Hammell v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2020). The District Court denied the summary judgment motions of CBS Corporation (Westinghouse) and Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, so the plaintiff's failure-to-warn claims against both go forward.
• Hammell v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2015). The court granted Foster Wheeler's summary judgment motion on the bare metal defense, entering judgment for Foster Wheeler against plaintiff Linda Hammell, and denied both parties' cross-motions on the government contractor defense because of disputed facts.
• Hammell v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2014). The district court denied the Hammells' motion to remand, keeping the case in federal court because GE, CBS and Foster Wheeler Energy satisfied the federal officer removal requirements.
• Hammer v. Algoma (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court denied Bird Incorporated's motion for summary judgment, leaving the Hammers' claims against Bird for trial.
• Hammer v. Algoma Hardwoods, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The trial court denied defendant Mario & DiBono Plastering Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs' claims against it continue.
• Hammer v. Rosenthal Jew. Sup. Corp. (Florida District Court of Appeal, 4th District, 1990). The appeals court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Hammer estate's suit against Rosenthal Jewelers Supply and the other defendants as a discovery sanction, but remanded to give Mrs. Hammer ten days to consent to the autopsy and so prevent dismissal.
• Hamrick v. A & I Company (U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia, 2009). The district court denied plaintiff Wanda Hamrick's motion to remand, holding that federal enclave jurisdiction supported removal to federal court by defendant Pratt & Whitney.
• Handley v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal granted plaintiff Wayne Handley's petition for writ of mandate and ordered the trial court to set a trial date within 15 days of finality, rejecting the July 21, 2009 date sought by the defendants (Buffalo Pumps and others).
• Handley v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal granted Handley's writ petition and directed the trial court to vacate its summary adjudication order against Handley, reconsider the motion including his "sophisticated user" argument, and rule on its merits; Leslie Controls lost the ruling.
• Haney v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2015). The district court granted Hopeman Brothers' motion for summary judgment on all claims, ruling that the plaintiffs' evidence of Haney's exposure to Hopeman-installed Marinite panels was too infrequent and brief to be a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma.
• Haney v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2015). The court granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment against the Haney plaintiffs, finding no admissible evidence that Haney was exposed to asbestos in a product for which Crane Co. is liable.
• Hankins v. Asbestos Defendants (bhc) (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2010). The Court of Appeal affirmed the order allocating 80 percent of the asbestos settlement funds to James Quinn's daughter Juanita Reid and 20 percent to Betty Quinn's estate, rejecting Hankins's claim for a larger share for Hellums.
• Hansen v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1984). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the jury's liability findings for the widow, Beatrice Hansen, against Johns-Manville, but held the compensatory and punitive awards excessive and remanded for a remittitur (accepted or refused at Hansen's option) or a new trial on damages only.
• Hansen v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 1996). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's orders staying the Hansens' California asbestos actions against Owens-Corning Fiberglas and others on forum non conveniens grounds, so the plaintiffs lost and were directed to file in Montana.
• Hanson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Georgia, 2018). The federal district court excluded the causation and contamination opinions of plaintiff Hanson's experts Gordon, Kradin and Moline and most of Webber's, and allowed the defense experts Sanchez, Mossman and Moolgavkar to testify, a ruling favoring Colgate-Palmolive.
• Hanson v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Georgia, 2018). The district court granted Colgate-Palmolive's motions for summary judgment and partial summary judgment on punitive damages, entering judgment against Douglas Hanson on all claims because he had no evidence that his late wife was exposed to asbestos in Cashmere Bouquet talc, or at what level.
• Hanson v. Collins Electrical Co. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2016). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Collins Electrical Company, holding Hanson raised a triable issue on medical monitoring damages despite having no lung impairment.
• Harahan v. AC & S, Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2003). The Superior Court reversed summary judgment for Amchem Products (Benjamin Foster Division) and remanded for further proceedings, ruling for the plaintiff widow.
• Harashe v. Flintkote Co. (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, 3rd Division, 1993). The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the $2.5 million jury verdict and judgment for plaintiff Edward Harashe against W.R. Grace & Co.—Conn.
• Harder v. ACandS (U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 1999). The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment to General Electric, holding Iowa's statute of repose barred the Harders' claims against GE, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Harder v. ACandS, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, 1998). The federal district court denied General Electric's motion for summary judgment, holding that Iowa's fifteen-year statute of repose did not bar the Harders' claims against GE over asbestos insulation blankets.
• Harding v. KC Wall Products, Inc. (Kansas Supreme Court, 1992). The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial of K.C. Wall Products' summary judgment motion, holding the 1990 revival statute constitutional and Charlett Harding's suit timely, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Harding v. Proko Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, 1991). The court granted the plaintiff's motion and ruled that Texas law, not Kansas law with its 10-year statute of repose, governed the claims against Proko, Georgia-Pacific, National Gypsum and United States Gypsum.
• Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1988). The Fifth Circuit reversed the judgments for the five plaintiffs against Armstrong World Industries, Raymark, Keene and the other defendant-appellants, and remanded for a new trial.
• Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1982). The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's omnibus order, which had applied nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel and judicial notice against the asbestos manufacturer defendants, so the defendants prevailed and the plaintiffs lost the order.